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

Re: Updated Features draft

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:02:48 +0200
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Message-ID: <1284451368.2387.838.camel@localhost>
Hi Frederick,

Any feedback on my proposal/questions below?

Dom

Le jeudi 02 septembre 2010 à 09:50 +0200, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a
écrit :
> Le mercredi 25 août 2010 à 17:26 +0200, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com a
> écrit :
> > I added a warning to clarify that BONDI and Android material are
> > informative examples  and likely to change. I also removed the empty
> > capability sub-sections.
> 
> I see that you've brought back the Features/Capabilities distinction;
> but the features sections is entirely empty at this stage, and the
> Capabilities section makes references both to Android Capabilities and
> BONDI features.
> 
> I wonder if we shouldn't drop that distinction entirely, and simply
> talks about "permissions" or "access permissions"? In other words, it's
> not clear to me what it buys us to have this layering of
> capabilities/features when this distinction doesn't exist in browsers
> today, and when the widgets P&C spec only know about a single layer as
> well.
> 
> In terms of granularity, I think we should start from the granularity
> used by browsers today (e.g. no distinction between
> geolocation.getCurrentPosition and geolocation.watchPosition would imply
> a single permission string for geolocation) for existing APIs, and start
> from what we've described in our drafts for the new APIs.
> 
> I'm willing to take a stab at it (as per my ACTION-263), but only if
> that direction makes sense to you.
> 
> Dom
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 08:02:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:13 GMT