W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Communication Log (was: Rechartering Device APIs & Policy Working Group)

From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:07:57 -0800
Message-ID: <BC8B7F23C59D4290AFB34A660919F555@ITServices.sbc.com>
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "public-device-apis" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
IMO the browser is the biggest silo of all, if you want to pass out those 
characterizations.

But are you really saying that Gmail or Hotmail within the browser is an 
invalid use case? If not, why shouldn't access to my local folder copy as an 
optimization be allowed?

Further, I *am* thinking more broadly of the trusted Web app domain, and not 
limiting the use cases to the browser implementation model. There is very 
significant support for the inbox read/subscribe feature inside Web apps, 
and the fact that so far in DAP "The working group tried hard and failed to 
find a way to make this work" does not mean we can't keep trying, or that 
once our focus extends beyond the browser, it won't get much easier (it 
should).

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:39 AM
To: "Bryan Sullivan" <blsaws@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>; "public-device-apis" 
<public-device-apis@w3.org>
Subject: Communication Log (was: Rechartering Device APIs & Policy Working 
Group)

> Hi,
>
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 17:04 , Bryan Sullivan wrote:
>> - Communication Log API should remain in scope.
>
> The working group tried hard and failed to find a way to make this work. 
> We can't keep revisiting the same topics over and over again unless there 
> is new information that was not previously known.
>
> The problem that we keep returning to is that we can't find a use case 
> justifying accessing my mailbox from inside my browser. I am not saying 
> that this API isn't useful for a specific class of applications, but we as 
> a group have failed to find it broad applicability.
>
> I certainly don't deny that this API could indeed be useful for 
> applications that benefit from a heightened level of trust. But that 
> places it firmly in the trusted silo, and DAP cannot be in the business of 
> producing silo technology. Unless we can find solid use cases and a 
> security model that can make this work in the broad One Web, it is my firm 
> opinion that standardisation of this API would be better conducted in a 
> vertical forum.
>
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>
>
>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 09:14:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:17 GMT