Re: Updated draft charter

Hey Michael,

Awesome for signing up to help on this speak.

I agree the milestones are too aggressive and we will not meet them.  If it makes you feel any better, I am pretty sure the original milestones for the first geolocation spec were only 3-4 years wrong. :)

On the ServiceWorker point, I don’t think we should require service workers to do a simple geofence.  We should take the time to look at how we’d work with ServiceWorkers.  I suspect that the API will 'just work'(tm).

Doug

On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:

> On mar., 2014-01-21 at 14:34 +0000, Michael van Ouwerkerk wrote
> 
> 
>> recent discussions on this list have again highlighted the need for
>> further work on the device orientation spec. It would be great to
>> drive that to CR.
> 
> Absolutely! This probably should be at the top of the priorities of this
> group :)
> 
>> I would like to express again my concerns about geofencing,
>> specifically its likely dependency on ServiceWorker, which is
>> immature. ServiceWorker could provide a lightweight mechanism to wake
>> up a webapp and fire a geofence event. Without a lightweight wakeup
>> mechanism, geofencing will be a lot less useful. Given this likely
>> dependency on an immature spec, do you still think the proposed
>> milestones are realistic?
>> 
> I agree with you that geofencing is much more useful with a wake-up
> mechanism; that said, assuming that people already do geofencing with
> the current geolocation API (which I don't know), it could also be
> argued that a dedicated geo-fencing API would improve significantly
> these existing use cases (i.e. more battery efficient, more privacy
> sensitive).
> 
> By how much do you think we would need to push the milestones if there
> were indeed a dependency on ServiceWorker? My understanding is that a
> first spec for SW should appear in the upcoming few weeks, but I am a
> lot less clear on how far that spec will be from being in state where
> one can build other specs on top of it.
>> 
>> Finally, I'd be happy to contribute to the Geolocation spec,
>> representing Google, as part of Chrome.
> 
> Great news, thanks!
> 
>> Maybe we can also find someone new to help out with the device
>> orientation spec.
> 
> Dom
> 
> 
> 
>