- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) <BS3131@att.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:37:55 -0700
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>
- Cc: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Robin, I agree, and can support an editor role for this document. Best regards, Bryan Sullivan | AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@robineko.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:10 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: Frederick Hirsch; richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com; public-device-apis@w3.org Subject: Re: ISSUE-5: Application Configuration API On Sep 23, 2009, at 21:22 , SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote: > I'm not proposing both a landscape and requirements document, or > specifically either, but an umbrella document which makes it > possible for the reader to assess: > - how the API specs (and other common specs e.g. an API patterns > spec) fit into the overall web application context > - why certain things are addressed in the DAP spec suite > - why other specific things are not I propose that we start work on an umbrella document (I'm happy to put the skeleton up in CVS if there's consensus) but I want to avoid it being on any kind of critical path. It shouldn't be on Rec track (i.e. it's a Note) and moving the other documents forward shouldn't depend on its maturity. Furthermore I want to try and keep the strain on editors as low as possible given their already substantial workload, so it would be appreciated if the people who proposed and supported this approach were to further their point through action by contributing text and editorial time :) -- Robin Berjon robineko - setting new standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 13:38:38 UTC