- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:00:22 +0000
- To: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Frederick, All, On 08 Aug 2014, at 17:38, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote: > we plan to publish an updated WD as soon as possible but want to get basic agreement regarding some of the issues (e.g. re promises) first so we don’t confuse people going forward This is a summary of all the changes since 3 July Editor’s Draft to help the group review them more easily. I've tried to address all the open issues and actions in the tracker: https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/products/24 The Editor’s Draft updated with the below changes is at: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/default/battery/Overview.html Here’s the summary of changes: ISSUE-166 Should getBattery() always return the same promise? Resolved with: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/27d83813c582 ISSUE-168 getBattery() vs. requestBattery() pattern Resolved with: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/6cb6dc26210d ISSUE-169 Battery API needs to be more event driven and async, less device centric. Addressed by Brian’s response I think: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2014Aug/0018.html ACTION-705 Add warning to Battery API that (naive) implementation of API could negatively affect battery life Resolved with: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/8de2afb0ac21 This leaves us with: ISSUE-167 Should Promises be used in Battery API ... which I think has addressed itself by two major implementers (Google + Mozilla) implementing the promise-based API, and in addition positive signals from others (Cordova), see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2014Aug/0023.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2014Aug/0018.html > thanks for there recent review of Anssi’s proposed update - I anticipate we will be publishing soon, we seem to be making progress. Please let me know what would be an appropriate time for publishing the updated LC, while giving people some time to review the changes? I’m happy prepare a publication ready LC snapshot, and see it passes pubrules. Personally, I’d like to make sure to get Mozilla’s implementation feedback baked in before we publish. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 09:00:52 UTC