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: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:29:21 +0200
Cc: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EB91ED08-FC34-488D-A648-F2119D9C0C60@berjon.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Hi Marcin,

On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:55 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> I do not claim that W3C is slow (quality and process matters for me  
> as well) and agree with your comments on this.
> My issue is that on the implementation level you cannot distinguish  
> WD from CR/PR/Rec.

Yes, you can, it's called an alpha version. This is very clearly the  
case of an API that may change and for which the authors do not  
guarantee that they won't break compatibility. WGs don't generally  
object to having people implement drafts early, so long as said people  
make it clear to their customers that they're not selling a stable  
long term solution, and so long as they don't claim conformance to  
anything.

> But now WD=CR=PR=Rec. People simple do not know what they buy.

If anyone is getting the impression that WD=CR=PR=Rec the vendors are  
to blame I'm afraid.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 10:30:06 GMT

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