- From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:31:29 -0400
- To: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
The original question was "How do you detect if the UA supports each of these sensor?" I don't think we're asking whether you'd get events, but whether you can detect that the UA actually supports the event. I would think the UA should expose support (via onxxx attributes) if the UA and device actually have support, even if the sensor is turned off. There may be a separate API for determining if the sensor is turned on, but I don't think that's what was being asked. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: > That is different -- Hixie can chime in. > > I think the idea is that if you have and dom event handler, you should > also have an onXXXX event handler attribute. Its meaning is less defined. > I do not think it means that if ondevicemotion exists, that means you will > always see device motion events. > > Doug > > > On May 9, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Scott González wrote: > > > There was a related discussion on the mailing list: > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-November/029252.html > > > > I also found a message from Hixie to me, related to that thread: "I > agree entirely that if an event has a use case, it makes sense for it to > have an event handler attribute." > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > On May 9, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: > > >> Where was that discussion? > > > > > > This came up at the WebApps F2F and there was general agreement that > > > if we added new events adding new event handler attributes would make > > > sense. > > > > Was there any notes taken? > > > > > > > Feature detection of some kind is useful as forcing people to > > > do UA sniffing leads to badness. > > > > I am not arguing that it shouldn't be done. I just don't think it as > important as most people. For example, even if the device is present, it > may be off or not responding. In that case, you'll have a feature that > tests positive and never receive any events. > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 15:36:49 UTC