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

Re: Editors, Requirements, Style, etc.

From: Anselm R Garbe <anselm@aplixcorp.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:27:22 +0100
Message-ID: <89d1e7b80908050327o57600e08n3bb88199fc730589@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Hi there,

2009/8/4 Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>:
> while this WG will only get into full swing closer to the end of August when
> people are back from vacation, we should try to get a number of things out
> of the way earlier so we don't get bogged down in administrativia later.
> First of all, I should make it clear that this WG will operate more or less
> with two hemispheres: API and Policy. I won't take the brain metaphor too
> far lest we fall into Starship Troppers references too fast, but the two are
> linked and communicate but can also operate independently (so that if you're
> only interested in one side, you don't have to sift through too much crud
> from the other).
> Frederick is handling the Policy side, while I'll do APIs. That being said
> if you need to talk to the chairs about something, please copy both of us as
> we intend to be able to cover for each other's side.
> The rest of this email is largely about the API side of things, though
> should it inspire you to talk about Policies by all means go ahead.
> There are quite a few APIs that we need to specify, and it would be nice (to
> say the least) if they had some form of coherence. As a result, the plan for
> the API specifications is that rather than having one or two editors per
> API, we have a pool of editors for all of them. So far the following have
> heroically volunteered:
>  Daniel Coloma, Telefónica de España
>  Marcin Hanclik, Access
>  myself
> If you have objections to these people editing, please voice them now or
> forever keep them in your drafts folder.
> We very much welcome other volunteers — we'll need a fair amount of editing
> power to get all those documents out in time. The pool will be kept up to
> date at: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/editor-pool.html.
> Where the specifications are concerned, we've already had an interesting
> thread covering some of the difference between the Nokia and BONDI APIs. I
> wonder if it might not be simpler to list the requirements that led to the
> creation of these APIs, alongside other requirements that people may have?
> It would help define an target to be met (and features to be pushed off to
> future versions) for these specifications.
> Finally I would like all of you to think about API style (e.g. the way in
> which arguments are passed) ahead of starting, and invite anyone with a
> strong opinion on the matter to post about it now.

I'd like to volunteer as well and plan to come up with some input
regarding the API style asap and some best practices I want to share.

Kind regards,
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 10:28:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:38 UTC