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: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:17:05 -0700
Message-ID: <18939.44321.218000.806861@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: Art.Barstow@nokia.com
Cc: arun@mozilla.com, w3c-ac-forum@w3.org, public-device-apis@w3.org, dougt@mozilla.com, dbaron@mozilla.com, plh@w3.org, tlr@w3.org
This is good to hear. Geo APIs was booted out of WebApps because
of IP  threats from Nokia; has that now changed? AKA,  can we
simplify life by folding Geo  back in where it belongs;-)

Arthur Barstow writes:
 > 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*
 > >
 > 

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Saturday, 2 May 2009 02:17:55 GMT

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