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

RE: Schedule and criteria for FPWD of Contacts API

From: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:10:16 -0500
Message-ID: <B35D8F122C08BC43BBA1D02713D2BB5D082B00A4@XCH69YKF.rim.net>
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>
Cc: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, <dom@w3.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Robin, all,

One of my key concerns of the current draft is the scope (that was
raised by a few others on the list) and the so called 1:1 alignment with
vCard. If we really want to proceed with FPWD soon, I'd rather go with a
very simple, and a small set of functionality that we know is supported
by devices today which is actually quite close to the functionality
present in the inputs submitted to the group and are posted on our
charter page.

Regarding vCard, I am personally not against the content of vCard spec
but saying that our spec is a 1:1 mapping is mis-leading. vCard was
designed as a format for transporting contact information and our focus
is accessing the device functionality i.e. functionality supported
natively by the device. Of course we can use vCard as the basis (e.g.
use the semantics of contact properties, etc) but designing our API with
strict alignment with vCard is too strong a requirement. I can
understand the superset argument, but if devices end-up not supporting
all the vCard attributes natively (which is the case today), and we
restrict the mandatory attributes to only a few don't see much value in
terms of application/content re-use. Ideally, we should expect that all
the attributes we define are mandatory and this can only happen if we
had a small set of key attributes.

Another observation from the current draft is that we have way too many
interfaces defined - this is not optimal for mobile. This is probably
one of the side effects of strict mapping to vCard. We can surely
optimize this (e.g. collapse some interfaces) with some analysis. 

Hope this clarifies my point.

Regards,
Suresh

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@robineko.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:19 AM
To: Suresh Chitturi
Cc: richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com; dom@w3.org;
public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: Schedule and criteria for FPWD of Contacts API

Hi Suresh,

On Nov 30, 2009, at 17:33 , Suresh Chitturi wrote:
> I have the same feeling as Richard on this. It is a bit early to push
> for FPWD, although it is the one that has been most worked upon.

Can you please explain why you feel it may be too early? The W3C process
is very much publication oriented so we do need technical reasons not to
publish something that we have!

--
Robin Berjon
  robineko - hired gun, higher standards
  http://robineko.com/





---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 19:10:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:02 GMT