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

Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:36:07 +0200
Cc: "Rich Tibbett" <richt@opera.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <A59857B9-FB11-4228-865B-BA54884813EC@robineko.com>
To: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
On Sep 29, 2010, at 15:31 , Suresh Chitturi wrote:
-----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@robineko.com]
> Copying rather than referencing is by and large a bad idea. If there is
> existing text that is good, and if that text is being actively
> maintained so that bugs are fixed, we should reference it so that we
> benefit from the bug fixes and don't create gratuitous divergences. This
> is basic editorial good practice.
> Suresh>> Generally, I would agree that referencing is the best approach.
> However, the issue we have at the moment is that no single format has
> emerged as the consensus one. On the other hand, keeping our own
> descriptions would make sense going forward, as we can keep control on
> how our API/format evolves, and don't have to worry about extensions.
> This is another reason to have a very simple set of fields to start with
> and push everything else under "extensions".

I hear you, but I don't think that we're at the mercy of extensions since we reference individual fields for their definitions rather than the entire specification.

It is probably true however that at least some of the PoCo definitions could use some pimping up in the quality department, and that could indeed justify having our own. But while the effect would be the same, it's another kettle of fish!

Robin Berjon
  robineko  hired gun, higher standards
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 13:36:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:46 UTC