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

Re: ISSUE-67: Naming of "device"

From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:28:58 -0500
Cc: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A265A9EC-94C0-497E-8F4D-08EB6E97C560@jkemp.net>
To: Dion Almaer <dion@almaer.com>
On Jan 15, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Dion Almaer wrote:

> I know that there are already minutes on this, but I am with Doug.

And I, for one, see your point.

> Having a namespace like this adds nothing and feels arbitory.

So, I guess the question is whether there is any utility in having a group namespace, rather than placing each individual API object inside the navigator object directly?

My reasoning for having a group name (I prefer 'service') might be that if we were to create constants that might be relevant to _all_ of the APIs then rather than place them in each individual API object, we could put them into the "global" object. Do we have anything that looks like it might fit?  

> My laptop is a device. Geolocation is one example. Access to video recording abilities? If you look to the future won't MOST APIs be available through "devices"? It feels like a decision based on the naming of this working group and should be reconsidered. (This is coming from someone who works for a "device" company)

I have to admit, I agree, that if there is no actual utility in the extra name, then people will likely alias it anyway (navigator.camera = navigator.service.camera ;)

- johnk
 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Nilsson, Claes1 <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com> wrote:
> My vote is: api, ext, device, service
> 
> Looking forward to the tequila.
> 
> Claes
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> > Sent: torsdag den 14 januari 2010 14:41
> > To: public-device-apis@w3.org
> > Subject: ISSUE-67: Naming of "device"
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am loth to open a naming debate, so as agreed on the call yesterday
> > let's make it swift. I initially planned on doing this on a Friday, but
> > I won't be around tomorrow so today's the new Friday.
> >
> > We've resolved to use the navigator.device.<module>.<method> form
> > yesterday (for APIs where it makes sense, naturally). It's been
> > suggested that "device" isn't such a great name, and alternatives have
> > been proposed.
> >
> > The following alternative (including keeping things as they are) have
> > been proposed:
> >
> >   device
> >   service
> >   api
> >   ext
> >
> > Since this is essentially a bike-shed decision, I've decided to use a
> > variant of the Survivor decision process. The normal Survivor process
> > is synchronous and therefore won't work well here. The variant is this:
> > please vote with the list of options above ordered from the one you
> > *hate most* (and therefore want to see voted off the island) to the one
> > you hate least. The winner will be selected using a commonsensical
> > ordering and tequila. Voting closes when I get to work Monday morning;
> > since this is a vote (albeit informal) we don't need to know what the
> > reasoning behind your preference is (though you may include it, if it's
> > entertaining enough).
> >
> > My vote: api, ext, device, service.
> >
> > --
> > Robin Berjon
> >   robineko - hired gun, higher standards
> >   http://robineko.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 20:41:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:05 GMT