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 18:24:10 +0200
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.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: <FAA1D89C5BAF1142A74AF116630A9F2C0A26ED872D@OBEEX01.obe.access-company.com>
Hi Marcos,

It seems our mails crossed... :)

>>Marcin, this is by design and totally on purpose. We don't want this to
>>ever happen. This would be really really REALLY bad. Working Drafts are
>>NOT TO BE IMPLEMENTED for shipping! Only implement them to fix a spec,
>>not to ship to market.
I still basically agree. But I cannot stop my customers from wanting some WD implemented. If someone comes and wants to buy WD implementation, I would be **** not doing that.
I just want to mark such an implementation as not implementing the final standard in some "standard", agreed and discoverable (for all: customer, content developer etc.) way. I think any method would be ok and stopping discussions on this sensitive topic is not the way to move the problem forward. I do not want to endorse bad implementations.

What you mention in your email below are bugs related to the implementation of the specifications. Probably less people would object if the IE would have well-documented features / modifications of the standards instead of saying that it implemented web standards without in fact doing it correctly.

I try to find a solution for an intentional and foreseenable process of the specifications changing in time.

Many industry members have agreed in BONDI (I hope no-one from the readers objects to this statement) that there may be and will be new versions of that standard. Nobody is perfect. The next releases may add, remove or modify parts of the previous version. This is life, technologies come, improve and go.

So why not to have a solution for that?
Still I mean dynamic APIs specifically.

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: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marcosc@opera.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:57 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Robin Berjon; 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"



On 4/30/09 5:08 PM, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> 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.

Marcin, this is by design and totally on purpose. We don't want this to
ever happen. This would be really really REALLY bad. Working Drafts are
NOT TO BE IMPLEMENTED for shipping! Only implement them to fix a spec,
not to ship to market. We clearly say "Implementers who are not taking
part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing
out from under them in incompatible ways."

If someone actually wants to do what you are suggesting, they should do
that as a proprietary widget format and say absolutely nothing about W3C
widgets.

> And versioning model for both content and WUA could help here, I think.

No. People should code to spec, not to implementation (and yes, this is
to implementation because WD have holes that are being filled in
proprietary/arbitrary ways: e.g., what URI scheme is BONDI's RI using?
Why is it using that one when W3C has not even specified one?
conformance FAIL). The Web is soooo broken today because vendors did
what you are suggesting and now we have a 500 page HTML5 spec that tries
to fix all the mistakes browsers vendors have ever made. Look at all the
pain IE6 caused developers for not implementing to spec (this might not
be MS fault because the specs were ambiguous)! all the work around and
hacks, that's all bad! All the browser version checking code, etc. It's
a freeken nightmare + all the reverse engineering everyone has had to do
to render pages like IE does.

Don't repeat this for widgets!

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

I hope I'm the one misunderstanding you and you are not seriously
suggesting what I think you are suggesting.

Marcos

________________________________________

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 16:25:26 GMT

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