Re: [w3ctag/spec-reviews] Review of WakeLock API and suitability for overall platform requested by 31 August 2016 (#126)

As discussed today on the call, the API is well-specified in its own right (see https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/126#issuecomment-242101530). One of the concerns voiced today was that when placed alongside other APIs of relatively similar character (pointerLock, fullscreen API), (1) the shape of the API is not consistent (e.g., there's a pattern of request*() methods being used and this property doesn't quite fit that pattern), and (2) other platform APIs are able to convey the actual state of the requested _thing_ (through related events, etc.--in wakeLock, the actual state is not disclosed).



-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/126#issuecomment-243936986