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

RfC: Wide review of Wake Lock API; deadline August 31st

The Device & Sensors Working Group is soliciting the review of the Wake Lock API on our way to Candidate Recommendation status:  https://www.w3.org/TR/wake-lock/

>From the TAG we hope to get a review of the overall API and its insertion in the rest of the platform (as well as potentially comments on aspects we have asked other groups about in a call for review)

>From APA, PING and WebAppSec, we hope to get a review from an accessibility, privacy and security perspective of the specification.

We particularly call upon the attention of the WebAppSec WG on the proposed approach to manage permissions to use the Wake Lock API, whereby an embedded cross-origin browsing context is never allowed, as described in the first note in section 5.

For both WebAppSec and PING, we note that the group used the self-review questionnaire in the development of this specification:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Mar/att-0038/00-part

>From WebPlatform and TAG, we hope to get a review of the overall API and its insertion in the rest of the platform.

Since the API extends the Screen interface defined by the CSS WG in the CSSOM View module, the CSS WG might wish to confirm this extension is in-line with the design of the interface.

Likewise, since the API relies on the Page Visibility state defined by the WebPerf WG, that group might wish to comment on the proper usage of that signal.

Reviews from other groups are also naturally welcome.

We would appreciate to receive your feedback before the end of August; the preferred method for feedback is to file issues in our github
repository:  https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues ; 

alternatively, send a mail to our public mailing list public-device-apis@w3.org with a
subject prefixed with [wake-lock].

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Device & Sensors Working Group Chair

---
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