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

Re: ISSUE-22: Should we have an umbrella requirements document?

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:45:08 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F57C9ECD-D0F7-41F1-9681-E1FE092436CC@nokia.com>
To: "ext richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com" <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
How will such general requirements that span multiple APIs be captured  
and communicated outside the work group and beyond the life of the  
work group, apart from the implicit impact on the specifications?

regards, Frederick (asking not as chair)

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Sep 23, 2009, at 12:32 PM, ext richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com  
wrote:

> At the moment our lightweight requirements process means no  
> centralised
> requirements document. Individual (lightweight) API requirements are  
> to
> be included in individual W3C DAP specs i.e. as demonstrated by the
> Camera API draft [1].
>
> There will be requirements that have overarching scope across all DAP
> APIs (such as design patterns & guidelines, security considerations,
> exception handling, etc) but I don't see such umbrella requirements
> being used as anything more than internal guidelines to editors when
> developing the DAP API specs.
>
> My view is that a general guidelines/requirements document would not
> necessarily be a useful public output of the W3C DAP WG. All general
> requirements will be implicitly included in all DAP API specs produced
> (because we will check that those guidelines are followed before
> publishing any spec).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Richard Tibbett
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/Overview.html
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 16:46:06 UTC

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