Messaging API comments

Hello,
 
Here are a few comments to the Messaging API draft, for consideration
prior to CfC. Sorry if they are coming late!
 
 
===========================
 
3. Scope
    
There is nothing in the spec dealing with "as well as inspection and
manipulation of message folders on a device."
Should this statement be removed or consider adding a note that this
functionality is TBD? I would prefer the later since this is quite
useful.
 
5. Supported messaging types
 
It would be much cleaner to create separate interface types for each of
the message type. Since you have a note to indicate this so it is fine
for now!
 
6.2 MessagingManager
 
There is no search/find capabilities. This is definitely needed.
 
6.3 Message
 
- ''sent' and 'received' attribute-naming is mis-leading. I think what
you intended is to associate a timestamp to the message. 
A better approach would be something like the following:
 
interface Message : MessageProperties {
    const unsigned short SMS_TYPE
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-SMS_TYPE>  = 1;
    const unsigned short MMS_TYPE
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-MMS_TYPE>  = 2;
    const unsigned short EMAIL_TYPE
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-EMAIL_TYPE>  = 3;
    const unsigned short STATUS_SAVED
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-SMS_TYPE>  = x;
    const unsigned short STATUS_DRAFT = x;
    const unsigned short STATUS_SENT = x;

    readonly attribute DOMString      id
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-id> ;
    readonly attribute unsigned short status
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-sent> ;
    readonly attribute Date           timestamp
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-received> ;
    readonly attribute unsigned short type
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-type> ;
    PendingOp send
<http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/#widl-Message-send>  (in
SuccessCallback successCB, in optional ErrorCallback errorCB);
};

Basically, adding a 'timestamp' attribute of type Date, and a 'status'
attribute have the following values: DRAFT, SAVED, SENT. 
With this combination only one timestamp would suffice and we can also
take advantage of the status field for find operations.
- A 'priority' attribute to indicate the priority of the message: HIGH,
MEDIUM/NORMAL, LOW would be very useful. It is very common with emails.
 
- send() 
    I remember we had discussion on how one can use the Contacts API in
messaging to be able to populate your "to", "cc", fields with contacts
from your address book. Is this still in the scope? We should at least
add a note in this regard. Also, this method will need to define
exceptions, when a particular attribute is not set based on section 5
prior to invoking this message. E.g. if this method is invoked without
setting the "to" field.
 
- Should there be delete/remove, and save methods? Seems logical to have
them.
 
Regards,
Suresh
 
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.