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

Re: Why aren't most devices virtual web services?

From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:50:14 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F48DB7FF-F27B-4B82-B25A-79A290DB5F62@nokia.com>
To: ext Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
>> Is there a requirement to allow local access to contacts, for  
>> example, even when disconnected from the network? How would this  
>> work in this model, or is disconnected operation not a requirement?  
>> It seems a mobile device should still operate as much as possible  
>> when disconnected.
>
> That's entirely orthogonal. Either the web server is local, or  
> (perhaps more likely) it is emulated by the user agent. You never go  
> to the network, whether connected or not.

I thought the proposal was to go to the network for authorization, in  
which case it is not orthogonal.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:43 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:

> On Jan 13, 2010, at 15:35 , Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>> Is there a requirement to allow local access to contacts, for  
>> example, even when disconnected from the network? How would this  
>> work in this model, or is disconnected operation not a requirement?  
>> It seems a mobile device should still operate as much as possible  
>> when disconnected.
>
> That's entirely orthogonal. Either the web server is local, or  
> (perhaps more likely) it is emulated by the user agent. You never go  
> to the network, whether connected or not.
>
>> How would this all relate to the current BONDI and Nokia proposals  
>> and the work that has been done with those? It seems to progress  
>> this new idea  further we need a more concrete proposal, another  
>> more detailed submission. Is this something Google is prepared to  
>> submit, Mark,  or Robin are you offering to do that?
>
> I am simply offering to develop a sufficiently complex example that  
> we can make an informed decision. Of course any other input is  
> welcome.
>
> It is a largely different approach from those that were submitted,  
> and I do have timeliness concerns. That being said before we start  
> worrying about that I really want to get more concrete with it: we  
> might find out that it makes specifying a number of our APIs  
> actually simpler (yet again, it might not).
>
>> I think exploring a given use case using the current submissions as  
>> well as this virtual web service approach is warranted, walking  
>> through the scenarios and issues, especially since we'd like to  
>> identify issues related to requirements, security, usability,  
>> interop etc as early as possible.
>
> That's why I suggested investigating what doing this with Geo would  
> look like: it's a well-known API, with well-known examples and use  
> cases, it's already done, and it has the right type of problems to  
> be interesting.
>
>> By the way, I assume the phrase "web services" is not meant to  
>> infer WS* SOAP Web Services in this thread...
>
> Over my dead body :)
>
> --
> Robin Berjon
>  robineko  hired gun, higher standards
>  http://robineko.com/
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 14:51:36 UTC

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