W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > April 2009

Re: ACCESS' input, was: RE: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs"

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:20:34 +0200
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Message-Id: <513A33DD-2E74-4128-AD76-A260F759E953@w3.org>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 28 Apr 2009, at 23:54, Marcin Hanclik wrote:

> 2. The scope of the Device API WG should be extensible.

Given the way in which the patent policy and process work, that's not  
likely to happen.  However, Working Groups can be re-chartered as they  
go, to extend scope and add new deliverables.  That re-chartering  
doesn't come cheaply, though, so you won't want to do it too often.

Therefore, it will be important to identify what set of APIs should  
take priority for a first round of work, and to put these into the  
initial charter.

> As an example please consider that BONDI IF WG defines now 14  
> different sets of APIs. There is partial overlapping between those  
> APIs and the work pursued in W3C, specifically for the Location API  
> and preferences from Widgets 1.0. There should be a clear plan to  
> unify those APIs.

It would be "interesting" for a newly chartered group to step into the  
scopes of the existing work on widgets and geolocation; my advice  
would be that BONDI participants interested in these points make their  
input known to the working groups that are already operating in these  
fields as quickly as at all possible.  As an aside, I understand that  
there's some progress toward last call working drafts in both groups.

> Having API versioning model seems to be semantically equivalent to  
> the updates of the Working Drafts in W3C, but in my personal  
> opinion, API versioning model is more transparent to the actual API  
> user and shall be discoverable by the web application code.

I don't quite understand what you mean here.  Are you suggesting  
deployment of draft APIs as working drafts are issued?
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 11:20:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:13:59 GMT