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: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:08:26 +0200
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
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: <FAA1D89C5BAF1142A74AF116630A9F2C0A26ED871C@OBEEX01.obe.access-company.com>
Hi Robin,

I suppose my point was misunderstood or I expressed myself not clearly enough.
By "on the implementation" level I mean how the content (being usually intelligent, e.g. by checking some UA parameters, e.g. by hasFeature()) can discover the capabilities of the UA.
I did not mean that the UA implementation is intentionally marked incorrectly.

>>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.
>>If anyone is getting the impression that WD=CR=PR=Rec the vendors are
>>to blame I'm afraid.
As stated above this is not the intended subject of my email.

Still, for the content implemented based on WD or CR or PR or Rec, there is currently no way in Widgets 1.0 specs to discover which particular version of the WD was taken as basis for the potential WUA implementation.
And versioning model for both content and WUA could help here, I think.

If my intentions are now clearer, I would be happy to hear your comments on them.

Thanks.

Kind regards,
Marcin

Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:29 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: marcosc@opera.com; Thomas Roessler; Arthur Barstow; Nick Allott; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACCESS' input, was: RE: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs"

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/






________________________________________

Access Systems Germany GmbH
Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda

www.access-company.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 15:09:40 GMT

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