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

RE: [Powerbox] New draft based on further collaboration and prototyping

From: David Rogers <david.rogers@omtp.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:55:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4C83800CE03F754ABA6BA928A6D94A06021E08B9@exch-be14.exchange.local>
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>, "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Robin and Tyler,

Another important point that we discussed before when powerbox first
came up was to ensure that we can cover-off some of the basic abuse
cases (as outlined here:
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy-reqs/#abuse-cases ).

Would it be possible to show how powerbox can handle those?



-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
Sent: 01 June 2010 16:07
To: Tyler Close
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Powerbox] New draft based on further collaboration and

Hi Tyler,

On May 27, 2010, at 00:41 , Tyler Close wrote:
> With the help of Sony Ericsson and Mozilla Labs, we have updated the
> Powerbox proposal to address a wider array of use-cases and
> implementation environments. This new draft reflects feedback we
> received on the initial proposal, discussions with potential
> implementers and application developers and prototyping work on Chrome
> and Android.

Thanks a lot for this update, it is most interesting. Reading through it
I find that most of my comments are of a rather editorial nature, and as
such I will get back to them later. Most importantly I find that this
draft is much clearer and presents a better defined approach to the

> The current version of the Powerbox spec is ready for wider
> prototyping work and we look forward to collaboration and feedback
> from this WG. We would like to see the Powerbox become a W3C
> Recommendation from this WG.

I agree that this would be a good path to follow. The first step is to
give it a home in CVS. I believe that you already have an account on
dev.w3, so the simplest thing is probably that you add a "powerbox"
directory to http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ and place it there. The next
step would be to agree on what makes the draft "good enough" for a First
Public WD. Apart from general consideration about quality and pubrules
which you already know and which I'm not worried about, a general rule
of thumb which we use in this WG is that ideally a FPWD ought to be
roughly and to the best of one's guesses feature-complete (though of
course it doesn't need to be perfect :) The reason for this is that it
provides somewhat better protection against IP issues for everyone. If
you think we're roughly there, then we can issue a call for consensus to
publish the document. We'll deal with the delicious vagaries of
Rec-track life afterwards.

Process question for Dom: do editors listed on a draft have to be
formally members of the WG? The companies listed already are, so my
understanding is that we're covered IP-wise.

To make sure that everything is in the clear, at the last F2F the group
agreed on what we call informally "the Prague Doctrine"[0], which is
essentially that we didn't want to pre-emptively decide between
tradition/JS/host object and REST/Powerbox implementations. This means
that we endeavour to produce APIs that can be bound to both views, but
that WG doesn't wish to dedicate a lot of bandwidth to the wiring of
those bindings (since this essentially means not spending a lot of
telecon time on them, I doubt it will prove to be an issue though). As
part of this decision I've offered to create a REST/JSON binding for
WebIDL so that the mapping would be consistent. To date this has
essentially been about me scribbling stuff down and tossing it into the
trashcan but I might have a new take - either way suggestions welcome!

Note that if other editors need access to CVS, they should email Dom
offlist with their SSH pubkey (and CC me).

Thanks a lot!


Robin Berjon
  robineko - hired gun, higher standards
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 15:56:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:44 UTC