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

RE: Hanging the APIs off navigator.device

From: Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:49:15 -0800
To: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Message-ID: <753F67ADE6F5094C9F1DBA00D1BAA8D312D66361FE@orsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com>
+1 for #1

Dzung Tran
Intel Corp

-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Brodie
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 09:27 AM
To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Cc: Robin Berjon
Subject: Re: Hanging the APIs off navigator.device

Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com> wrote:

> Hi Robin, all,
> I am in favor of 1).
> It is distinct, elegant, zero risk for conflict and "device" interface
> is something we can take ownership of without much involvement from HTML
> WG.

I also think (1) is best.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:30 AM
> To: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
> Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Hanging the APIs off navigator.device
> Hi,
> it's time to reheat this issue!
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:58 , <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> > Just wondering whether we should settle on a specific approach to
> > hanging certain APIs off the navigator.device object.
> To summarise what is in existing drafts and has been proposed, we
> currently have these abstract variations:
> 1. Service object, simple method, inside device
>   navigator.device.dahut.graze()
> 2. Prefixed method, directly on device
>   navigator.device.dahutGraze()
> 3. Generic unprefixed method, directly on device
>   navigator.device.graze()
> 4. Service object, simple method, directly on navigator
>   navigator.dahut.graze()
> I think we should eliminate option (3) because it doesn't scale (if we
> produce a Unicorn spec, since unicorns graze too we'll have painted us
> into a corner).
> The more I think about (2) the less I like it. It makes for a huge
> device object that doesn't really make much sense as a whole.
> So I guess the question is how much we mind polluting navigator :)
> Personally, I don't mind much because it's not a space in which authors
> normally put stuff so the risks should be low. The downside is that we
> don't own navigator (the HTML WG does) but I guess we can ask for their
> review.
> So I'm going to go with (4), i.e. Doug's proposal which Max already
> indicated support for.
> Any other opinions? One reason I'm asking is because once we get our
> first API out we'll also have to release the Core Device Interfaces, and
> they depend directly on this decision (I can make the change really
> quickly whichever option is chosen).
> --
> Robin Berjon
>   robineko - hired gun, higher standards
>   http://robineko.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Stewart Brodie
Team Leader - ANT Galio Browser
ANT Software Limited
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 05:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:41 UTC