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: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:49:10 +0200
Message-ID: <49F99036.5030900@opera.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.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>


On 4/30/09 12:29 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.
>

Exactly. Vendors SHOULD NOT provide legacy support for unfinished spec 
implementations. Developers beware! and shame on vendors that do this 
for they are the cause of fragmentation that standardization is trying 
to overcome.

Besides, this also means a test suite would need to be built for every 
working draft published for vendors to claim conformance to a working 
drat. Another tasks that is totally unfeasible.

>> 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.
>

Agreed.
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 11:49:59 GMT

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