Introduce "condition to update latest reading" #280

alexshalamov · 2017-09-21T13:51:39Z

Fixes: #227
Fixes: #223
Fixes: #222

pozdnyakov · 2017-09-22T07:52:32Z

index.bs

@@ -771,6 +764,23 @@ Note: For example, the UA may estimate [=optimal sampling frequency=] as a Least
 (LCD) for a set of {{[[desiredSamplingFrequency]]|desired sampling frequencies}} capped by
 [=sampling frequency=] bounds defined by the underlying platform.

+<h3 id="model-sensor">Conditions to update latest reading</h3>


maybe we could convert it to a feature of the browsing context and move this section into "Concepts"? For example:
"The browsing context is <dfn>safe to share platform data</dfn> if the following conditions are met ..." and in the text above it could be "Any time a new [=sensor reading=] for a [=platform sensor=] is obtained and if the current browsing context is [=safe to share platform data=] the user agent invokes [=update latest reading=]..." WDYT?

Sounds good. <dfn>safe to provide sensor data</dfn>

platform => sensor. To make it explicit, platform has lots of other data

share => provide. Share might sound as if UA shares data with something other than web page.

wdyt?

I'm fine with that, maybe "propagate" would be even more appropriate verb here: "safe to propagate sensor readings (to be consistent :-) )"

Alternative proposals for the definition:
<dfn>can expose sensor readings</dfn>
<dfn>check if we can expose sensor readings</dfn>

Where "expose" refers to "expose to scripts" specifically.

To be consistent with e.g.:

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#can-share-memory-with
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#check-if-we-can-run-script

The term "propagate" has its own meaning in https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ so I'd rather avoid it unless we define it more specifically.

Added <dfn>can expose sensor readings</dfn>

Moved section to concepts

anssiko · 2017-09-25T10:18:58Z

index.bs

@@ -771,6 +764,23 @@ Note: For example, the UA may estimate [=optimal sampling frequency=] as a Least
 (LCD) for a set of {{[[desiredSamplingFrequency]]|desired sampling frequencies}} capped by
 [=sampling frequency=] bounds defined by the underlying platform.

+<h3 id="model-sensor">Conditions to update latest reading</h3>


Alternative proposals for the definition:
<dfn>can expose sensor readings</dfn>
<dfn>check if we can expose sensor readings</dfn>

Where "expose" refers to "expose to scripts" specifically.

To be consistent with e.g.:

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#can-share-memory-with
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#check-if-we-can-run-script

The term "propagate" has its own meaning in https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ so I'd rather avoid it unless we define it more specifically.

pozdnyakov · 2017-09-25T13:40:16Z

index.bs

-are not delivered in such cases.
-A [=security check=] is run before [=sensor readings=] are delivered to ensure that.
-
+To mitigate this threat, user agent can check if it [=can expose sensor readings=].


s/can/should ?

pozdnyakov · 2017-09-25T13:50:20Z

index.bs

@@ -679,6 +667,20 @@ The [=reading change treshold|treshold=] value depends on the surrounding softwa
 environment constraints, e.g., software power consumption optimizations or the underlying
 [=device sensor=]'s accuracy.

+## Conditions to expose sensor readings ## {#concepts-can-expose-sensor-readings}
+
+In order to check if user agent <dfn>can expose sensor readings</dfn> following criteria may be used:


maybe tell that user agent is to define the necessary criteria to meet the [=conditions=] , i.e. which [=mitigation strategies=] must be applied and it depends on the underlying device' form factor or so.. The example is below

pozdnyakov · 2017-09-25T13:50:21Z

index.bs

@@ -679,6 +667,20 @@ The [=reading change treshold|treshold=] value depends on the surrounding softwa
 environment constraints, e.g., software power consumption optimizations or the underlying
 [=device sensor=]'s accuracy.

+## Conditions to expose sensor readings ## {#concepts-can-expose-sensor-readings}
+
+In order to check if user agent <dfn>can expose sensor readings</dfn> following criteria may be used:


maybe tell that user agent is to define the necessary criteria to meet the [=conditions=] , i.e. which [=mitigation strategies=] must be applied and it depends on the underlying device' form factor or so.. The example is below

pozdnyakov · 2017-09-25T13:55:40Z

index.bs

@@ -730,6 +732,10 @@ Any time the user agent obtains a new [=sensor reading=] for a [=platform sensor
 platform, it invokes [=update latest reading=] with the [=platform sensor=] and the [=sensor reading=]
 as arguments.

+Any time a new [=sensor reading=] for a [=platform sensor=] is obtained, user agent must check if


Any time a new [=sensor reading=] for a [=platform sensor=] is obtained and if the user agent [=can expose sensor readings=] ..

rwaldron · 2017-09-25T15:06:32Z

index.bs

-Using a more complex {{PermissionDescriptor}}.
-(e.g. with a boolean `allowBackgroundUsage = false`; [=dictionary member=]),
-might be the solution to relax this restriction.
-


How is this issue being addressed?

@rwaldron If you want, I can remove it in separate PR. We already have several issues related to exposing sensors to service workers https://github.com/w3c/sensors/projects/5. Removed inline issue is redundant.

Added issue back, will remove it in separate PR.

Fixes: w3c#227 Fixes: w3c#223

- Fixes for Mikhail's comments - Added inline issue back, would remove in separate PR

anssiko · 2017-09-26T07:03:55Z

index.bs

+## Conditions to expose sensor readings ## {#concepts-can-expose-sensor-readings}
+
+The user agent can define the list of [=conditions=] to be used to check if
+<dfn lt="can expose sensor readings">sensor readings can be exposed</dfn>.


I would say:

to check if it <dfn>can expose sensor readings</dfn>

That is, use the "can expose sensor readings" operation's canonical name.

anssiko · 2017-09-26T07:04:22Z

index.bs

+   is "visible".
+ - [=Currently focused area=] belongs to an [=active document=] of [=platform sensor=]'s associated
+   [=browsing context=] or to an [=active document=] of a [=nested browsing context=] whose
+   [=active document=]'s [=origin=] is the  [=same origin-domain=] as the [=top-level browsing context=]'s


nit: remove whitespace after "is the "

anssiko · 2017-09-26T07:05:00Z

index.bs

+   [=active document=]'s [=origin=] is the  [=same origin-domain=] as the [=top-level browsing context=]'s
+   [=active document=]
+
+Note: In order to release hardware resources, user agent can request underlying [=platform sensor=]


the user agent

pozdnyakov · 2017-09-26T07:10:37Z

index.bs

@@ -658,6 +652,23 @@ The [=reading change threshold|threshold=] value depends on the surrounding soft
 environment constraints, e.g., software power consumption optimizations or the underlying
 [=device sensor=]'s accuracy.

+## Conditions to expose sensor readings ## {#concepts-can-expose-sensor-readings}
+
+The user agent can define the list of [=conditions=] to be used to check if


should we mention that these conditions are based on [=mitigation strategies=] list? Also there is a list of mandatory requirements https://w3c.github.io/sensors/#construct-sensor-object (top level browsing context, secure context) think it is also worth mentioning here.

I would keep it as it is 😄

pozdnyakov

lgtm

alexshalamov requested review from anssiko, pozdnyakov and rwaldron September 21, 2017 13:51

pozdnyakov reviewed Sep 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

anssiko requested changes Sep 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

anssiko approved these changes Sep 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

pozdnyakov reviewed Sep 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

rwaldron reviewed Sep 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

Alexander Shalamov added 3 commits September 26, 2017 09:55

Introduce "condition to update latest reading"

343b4e7

Fixes: w3c#227 Fixes: w3c#223

Fixes for review comments

a744f5f

Fixes for review comments

09e27c0

- Fixes for Mikhail's comments - Added inline issue back, would remove in separate PR

alexshalamov force-pushed the suspend_platform_sensor branch from ee5abb9 to 09e27c0 Compare September 26, 2017 07:01

anssiko requested changes Sep 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

pozdnyakov reviewed Sep 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

pozdnyakov approved these changes Sep 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

anssiko approved these changes Sep 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

Fixes for Anssi's comments.

6458081

alexshalamov force-pushed the suspend_platform_sensor branch from a073ed6 to 6458081 Compare September 26, 2017 07:36

alexshalamov merged commit 9e93cd0 into w3c:master Sep 26, 2017

This was referenced Sep 26, 2017

What's the rationale of moving security checks outside of normative requirements? #287

Closed

Make 'Conditions to expose sensor readings' must #288

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Introduce "condition to update latest reading" #280

Introduce "condition to update latest reading" #280

alexshalamov commented Sep 21, 2017 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading

pozdnyakov Sep 22, 2017

alexshalamov Sep 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

pozdnyakov Sep 22, 2017

anssiko Sep 25, 2017

alexshalamov Sep 25, 2017

anssiko Sep 25, 2017

pozdnyakov Sep 25, 2017

pozdnyakov Sep 25, 2017

pozdnyakov Sep 25, 2017

pozdnyakov Sep 25, 2017

rwaldron Sep 25, 2017

alexshalamov Sep 25, 2017

alexshalamov Sep 26, 2017

anssiko Sep 26, 2017

anssiko Sep 26, 2017

anssiko Sep 26, 2017

pozdnyakov Sep 26, 2017

alexshalamov Sep 26, 2017

pozdnyakov left a comment

Introduce "condition to update latest reading" #280

Introduce "condition to update latest reading" #280

Conversation

alexshalamov commented Sep 21, 2017 • edited by pr-preview bot Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexshalamov Sep 22, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pozdnyakov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexshalamov commented Sep 21, 2017 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading

alexshalamov Sep 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading