W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2010

Re: to publish new WD of Access Control Use Cases and Requirements; deadline Aug 31

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:26:50 +0200
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B43B1A43-7FE9-4FE5-B14C-982D8C19B79D@w3.org>
To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
It's something that one would normally explain in the status of this document section.  In the case of widgets-reqs, that's not done very clearly.  Something along the following lines should do:

> "This document is not normative.  The Working Group expects to evolve this document further and will eventually publish a stable version as a Working Group Note."

Cheers,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)







On 31 Aug 2010, at 15:22, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:

> As another data point, the Widgets Requirements document is non-normative yet uses capitalized MUST language for requirements. Seems to make sense to specify requirements with that language since they are "requirements", but I understand the concern.
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/
> 
> I didn't find any guidance in the W3C Manual of Style or Process document.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
> 
>> Claes
>> 
>> I'd expect this to be an informative note. 
>> 
>> I think we should publish since it represents an update from what we have had previously, but publishing should not stop contributions and continued work on it.
>> 
>> regards, Frederick
>> 
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:50 AM, ext Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I still think that there are much vagueness in the document. This especially applies to section 3 on "Trusted Widget or Application" use case. We really need more discussion on this use case. Furthermore, I am not 100% convinced that this should be a normative document.
>>> 
>>> However, as said before, public publishing may be a way to get wider feedback so I can say +1, not because I feel comfortable but to (hopefully) get more flesh on the bones from people outside of DAP.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Claes 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-
>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
>>>> Sent: den 25 augusti 2010 16:45
>>>> To: public-device-apis@w3.org
>>>> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
>>>> Subject: CfC: to publish new WD of Access Control Use Cases and
>>>> Requirements; deadline Aug 31
>>>> 
>>>> On today's call we discussed publishing an update of the "Device API
>>>> Access Control Use Cases and Requirements" in the spirit of publish
>>>> early and often.
>>>> 
>>>> This is a call for consensus to see if there are any objections to
>>>> publishing an updated WD of the Device API Access Control Use Cases
>>>> and Requirements document (last published 29 June 2010).
>>>> 
>>>> The draft can be read at:
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy-reqs/
>>>> 
>>>> This draft  is a clarification and update to the previous publication
>>>> reflecting our recent discussions. Publishing an update should give
>>>> this wider visibility and enable others to see the progression of the
>>>> work.
>>>> 
>>>> Where CfCs are concerned, silence is considered to be assent, but
>>>> positive support is preferred (even if simply with a +1). Please send
>>>> feedback by next Tuesday (Aug 31).
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> regards, Frederick
>>>> 
>>>> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
>>>> Co-Chair, DAP WG
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 13:26:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:12 GMT