W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-autowebplatform@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Running status and Climate type merge

From: Rees, Kevron <kevron.m.rees@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:25:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFW5wYZh-aOw=swh5Ff8TNwqhSkGxx3fynVyKHSede40_ypmUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: 박종선(Justin Park) <jongseon.park@lge.com>
Cc: "public-autowebplatform@w3.org" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>
Merge as soon as you can.  You might have to rebase.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Rees, Kevron <kevron.m.rees@intel.com> wrote:
> Excellent.  I like it.
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:32 AM, 박종선(Justin Park) <jongseon.park@lge.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kevron,
>>
>> I considered something like below.
>> https://rawgithub.com/jsbach86/automotive-bg/master/vehicle_spec.html
>>
>> It looks quite long even though we didn't merge all yet.
>> However, do we need to make it on the same document since all interfaces should share 'basic interfaces'?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Justin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rees, Kevron [mailto:kevron.m.rees@intel.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:59 AM
>> To: 박종선(Justin Park)
>> Cc: public-autowebplatform@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Running status and Climate type merge
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:50 AM, 박종선(Justin Park) <jongseon.park@lge.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Kevron,
>>>
>>> Two links below have some differences.
>>> https://rawgithub.com/tripzero/automotive-bg/master/vehicle_spec.html
>>> It seems to applied my patch.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c/automotive-bg/pull/8
>>> But, it's the previous one you suggested before.
>>>
>>> I updated the original one to apply Paul's and your opinions, but
>>> didn't reflect changing SideWindow to Window by including defrost.
>>> It's hard to say which one is correct or wrong, but it looks natural
>>> to bind defrost equipment together including side mirrors, and to bind
>>> side windows for openness.
>>> It's close to group interfaces based on functions rather than objects.
>>> My automotive experience may make me biased toward this.
>>>
>>
>> I'm okay with different functional interfaces if the group is.  My new merge request has your more pristine version.  Although, I may have messed up ClimateControl.  Please look to make sure it is correct.
>>
>>> In addition, how about grouping the interfaces into several groups as
>>> we divided the works.
>>
>> Do you mean keep them as separate documents?  Or just sections within the main spec itself?
>>
>>> If we merged all the interfaces, the document will be quite long and
>>> many interfaces will be located on the same level.
>>> Although the grouping itself don't have any meaning, it could make it
>>> easy to see the document and look more organized.
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean something like this:
>>
>> https://github.com/tripzero/automotive-bg/blob/master/vehicle_spec.html#L190
>>
>> BR,
>> Kevron
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Justin
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Rees, Kevron [mailto:kevron.m.rees@intel.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:05 AM
>>>> To: public-autowebplatform@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Running status and Climate type merge
>>>>
>>>> This is what the draft will look like after the merge:
>>>> https://rawgithub.com/tripzero/automotive-bg/master/vehicle_spec.html
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Rees, Kevron
>>>> <kevron.m.rees@intel.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > https://github.com/w3c/automotive-bg/pull/8
>>>> >
>>>> > I'll leave it open for comments for a few days and then merge it in.
>>>> >
>>>> > -Kevron
>>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 21:25:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:52 UTC