Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[meta] Address remaining TAG review issues #303

Closed
5 tasks done
alexshalamov opened this issue Oct 6, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed
5 tasks done

[meta] Address remaining TAG review issues #303

alexshalamov opened this issue Oct 6, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@alexshalamov
Copy link

alexshalamov commented Oct 6, 2017 •
edited by pozdnyakov
Loading

Based on GS API and ALS TAG review notes, adding list of unaddressed issues:

  • What are the scope/extents of what are considered local sensors? (Better definition for local sensors)

  • Is "sensor state" meant to be mapped to the hardware sensor or specific to the software reflection that the object in question provides (which might be different than the hardware state)? (Should the state be clarified?)

  • The example (singular?) doesn't show how to use the Permission API. (Fix examples if applicable, + for all extension specs) Use Permission API in code example #305

  • Should Error type rather be DOMException? (w3ctag#88)?

  • What's the model for multiple clients of a sensor like this? (Fix TODO: note for multiple sensors + diagram)
@alexshalamov
Copy link
Author

@pozdnyakov if you catch something that I missed, please add issues to the list.

@pozdnyakov
Copy link

one thing from w3ctag/design-reviews#110 (comment) is

Should Error type rather be DOMException? (w3ctag#88)?

@pozdnyakov
Copy link

What's the model for multiple clients of a sensor like this? (Fix TODO: note for multiple sensors + diagram)

this one is addressed with #304

@alexshalamov
Copy link
Author

@pozdnyakov TODO still needs to be fixed.

@alexshalamov alexshalamov mentioned this issue Oct 11, 2017
Merged
pozdnyakov pushed a commit to pozdnyakov/sensors that referenced this issue Oct 11, 2017
Use DOMException instead of Error in SensorErrorEvent
d3427f2 
Rationals:
- `Error` is often confused with `DOMError`
(pls. see w3ctag/design-reviews#110 (comment)
"Should Error type rather be DOMException? (w3ctag#88)?" or
w3c#142 (comment))

- In practice `DOMException` is (and probably will be) sufficient to represent
the errors.

- the `Error` type is not quite popular within the specs so browser vendors are
reluctant to support it:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=674576

This patch is a part of the effort for fixing the [TAG review issues](w3c#303).
@pozdnyakov pozdnyakov mentioned this issue Oct 11, 2017
Merged
pozdnyakov pushed a commit to pozdnyakov/sensors that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2017
Use DOMException instead of Error in SensorErrorEvent
810d1a9 
Rationals:
- `Error` is often confused with `DOMError`
(pls. see w3ctag/design-reviews#110 (comment)
"Should Error type rather be DOMException? (w3ctag#88)?" or
w3c#142 (comment))

- In practice `DOMException` is (and probably will be) sufficient to represent
the errors.

- the `Error` type is not quite popular within the specs so browser vendors are
reluctant to support it:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=674576

This patch is a part of the effort for fixing the [TAG review issues](w3c#303).
pozdnyakov pushed a commit to pozdnyakov/sensors that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2017
Use the 'device sensor' term in the Scope section
1333c60 
The 'device sensor' term is defined and used within the
specification. Using it in the Scope section instead of
'local sensor' makes this section consistent with the rest
of the specification contents and also more clear.

This patch is a part of the effort for fixing the
[TAG review issues](w3c#303).
@pozdnyakov pozdnyakov mentioned this issue Oct 12, 2017
Merged
pozdnyakov pushed a commit to pozdnyakov/sensors that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2017
Use the 'device sensor' term in the Scope section
d32c2ae 
The 'device sensor' term is defined and used within the
specification. Using it in the Scope section instead of
'local sensor' makes this section consistent with the rest
of the specification contents and also more clear.

This patch is a part of the effort for fixing the
[TAG review issues](w3c#303).
pozdnyakov pushed a commit to pozdnyakov/sensors that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2017
Clarify Sensor states
8c64d9d 
Make it clear that Sensor states are different
than the hardware states.

This patch is a part of the effort for fixing the
[TAG review issues](w3c#303).
@pozdnyakov pozdnyakov mentioned this issue Oct 12, 2017
Merged
pozdnyakov pushed a commit to pozdnyakov/sensors that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2017
Clarify Sensor states
1695e8b 
Make it clear that Sensor states are different
than the hardware states.

This patch is a part of the effort for fixing the
[TAG review issues](w3c#303).
pozdnyakov pushed a commit to pozdnyakov/sensors that referenced this issue Oct 13, 2017
Use the 'device sensor' term in the Scope section
bfa208a 
The 'device sensor' term is defined and used within the
specification. Using it in the Scope section instead of
'local sensor' makes this section consistent with the rest
of the specification contents and also more clear.

This patch is a part of the effort for fixing the
[TAG review issues](w3c#303).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@pozdnyakov @alexshalamov