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

Re: Seeking feedback on a new WG to specify APIs for device services

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 17:16:37 -0400
Message-Id: <DF7FFD1C-A220-496D-851E-EA7A37ECD621@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-ac-forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@mozilla.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
To: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>
Arun,

It would be OK with Nokia if the Device Service APIs we proposed [1]  
were added to WebApps Charter.

In case you missed it, I already voiced support [2] for doing the  
related security and privacy work that Thomas Roessler proposed [3].  
It would also be OK with Nokia if that work was also added to WebApps  
Charter.

The higher priority for us is to start the work soon, in an open and  
transparent forum such as the W3C. We are less concerned about how  
whether these APIs and security/privacy work is put in a new WG(s).

Regarding the issue your raise about the length of time it takes for  
a Charter review, there are at least three phases:

1) "informal" charter discussions

2) formal AC review

3) Director's decision period

#2 and #3 are fixed periods of time (via the W3C Process Document)  
whether the review is for a Charter extension or a new WG Charter.

#1 is variable and I suspect that in practice (without doing any  
research) the time is generally about the same whether the discussion  
is about a new WG or a charter extension. Since you are a member of  
the Advisory Board and hence a "Keeper of the Process Document", then  
surely you will have specific recommendations for how to speed up  
this process. I'd like to hear those recommendations but, perhaps,  
the AC Forum would be a better venue for such discussions (and let's  
please not let such discussions derail the proposals to start this  
important new work).

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Apr/ 
0001.html>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Apr/ 
0003.html>
[3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Apr/ 
0000.html>


On May 1, 2009, at 4:44 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:

> Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> AC Reps - this is a heads up that, based on the results of last
>> December's Workshop related to Security and Device APIs [1], we
>> proposed a new WG to create specifications regarding APIs for device
>> services (list of specific APIs is below):
>>
>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Apr/ 
>> 0001.html>
>>
>>
>> I am interested in any comments you have via w3c-ac-forum or on the
>> public-device-apis mail list.
> Mozilla submitted a paper to the workshop that seems to have  
> ultimately
> spawned this WG proposal [2], and is pleased to see follow-up.   
> However,
> a few questions/observations should be raised.
>
> 1. While we welcome Nokia's "straw person" proposals as starting  
> points
> (and the royalty-free declarations on patents that accompany the straw
> persons), we continue to be uncomfortable that a _new_ WG is coined  
> for
> the purpose of creating APIs exposed to scripting contexts on the web.
> We expressed unease when Geolocation was moved from Web Apps to a
> separate WG.  If WG bloat is a consideration, then what guarantee is
> there that a "Device API WG" won't bloat, with more "concrete" APIs
> getting introduced over time?  Furthermore, discussion of security
> should occur in the context of the work being done, and not as a "pull
> out" activity.  I'd like a good explanation for why a brand new WG is
> necessary.  At Mozilla, we don't see "special case" APIs as only being
> fit for certain classes of devices, but for the web as a whole on
> multiple devices.  What rationale is provided for the creation of a  
> new WG?
>
> 2. Again, while we have concern that a new WG is required, we also  
> have
> concern that charter approvals for extensions to an existing  
> activity's
> scope take far too long.  In practice, I have not seen evidence that
> proposing new topics for exploration within a healthy space (such  
> as Web
> Apps) works efficiently.  This is distressing to see; I'd like
> commentary about why this is, and what can be done to expedite  
> this.  I
> am particularly concerned that it may prove faster to coin a new WG  
> than
> approve a charter amendment to an existing WG.  Why is this?
>
> 3. In general, this activity leaves security as a consideration for
> implementations, or at least as fodder for _yet_another_working_group_
> that may look at security implications.  There is merit in a security
> discussion; in fact, I'd rather see a WG for security discussions
> alongside efficient charter amendments to the Web Apps WG.  Even this
> isn't ideal, since it would seem that security may best be served by
> those designing individual APIs (at least where implementations  
> converge
> on a set of principles).
>>
>> -Regards, Art Barstow
>>
>> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report#Concrete>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/papers/mozilla.html
> -- A*
>
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 21:17:37 GMT

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