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

RE: Schedule and criteria for FPWD of Contacts API

From: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:33:19 -0500
Message-ID: <B35D8F122C08BC43BBA1D02713D2BB5D082AFD9A@XCH69YKF.rim.net>
To: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, <dom@w3.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Dom, all,

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.

Regards,
Suresh

-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 6:16 AM
To: dom@w3.org; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: RE: Schedule and criteria for FPWD of Contacts API

Hi Dom,

It would be nice to see DAP moving quickly but I still think we are too
early to publish even FPWD for the Contacts API by Dec 2009. I would
suggest the roadmap be updated to Jan/Feb 2010 for FPWD of Contacts API.

There are a number of items that would benefit from mailing list
discussion before FPWD. I will push these items to the mailing list
today. Perhaps we can pick up this discussion (i.e. FPWD roadmaps) on
our regular conf. call on Wednesday?

Kind Regards,

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Sent: 30 November 2009 09:42
> To: public-device-apis
> Subject: Schedule and criteria for FPWD of Contacts API
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In the tentative roadmap for the DAP specs [1], I put a first 
> public working draft of the contacts API [2] for December 
> 2009. Knowing that there will be a publication moratorium 
> with the end of the year where last publication requests must 
> be made by December 18 [3], I'm wondering if that's a 
> reasonable guess.
> 
> The real question is probably what are our criteria for 
> deciding to publish the API as FPWD; my understanding is that 
> we want to be reasonably feature-complete so that the Patent 
> Policy call for exclusions covers most of what the spec will become.
> 
> I assume we also want the security/privacy considerations to 
> be somewhat flushed out (per Rich's ACTION-50).
> 
> What else do we want before going to first public working draft?
> 
> There are three other open action items and two open issues 
> on the Geolocation API:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/products/5 ; it would be 
> good if their owners (Bryan, Robin, Arve) would let us know 
> if they consider them critical before FPWD.
> 
> Dom
> 
> 1. http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#roadmap
> 2. http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/
> 3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2009AprJun/0076.html
> 
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Monday, 30 November 2009 16:34:00 GMT

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