- From: Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:40:46 -0800
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
The only two viable options are #1 and #4. I don't like #4 for the reason that it polluting navigator. I think under device it will give the developers a sense that all the APIs are organized under the device category. Dzung Tran -----Original Message----- From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 07:01 AM To: public-device-apis@w3.org Subject: Re: Hanging the APIs off navigator.device Hi all, On Jan 6, 2010, at 17:29 , Robin Berjon wrote: > 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? You'll note that before expressing a relative preference, I wrote a few paragraphs explaining why. This isn't a vote people, your support for an option ought to be motivated (at the very least with "I support N because I agree with X")! -- Robin Berjon robineko - hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 16:41:22 UTC