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

Re: Rechartering Device APIs & Policy Working Group

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:01:09 +0100
Cc: Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <191721A3-B0CB-4A49-A05E-5C3C89283110@berjon.com>
To: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>
On Feb 8, 2011, at 14:11 , Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
> I know that this is tricky and I don’t know how far we can go and still have APIs that are reasonable easy to use by developers. More investigation is needed. So, how “exact” does a charter have to be? I understand that a good level of clarity is needed, e.g. due to IPR reasons, but do we already, in the charter, have to state that we limit ourselves to an event based model for sensors. Couldn’t we just say that we with continue with the work on sensor API. If we then came to the conclusion that the solution is to create a set of “hard” event based APIs as well as a low level API that is easily mapped on Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy and ANT+, would that be ok?

A charter has to be exact enough that it doesn't create IPR concerns is essentially what I would say. How exact that is depends on the group, the technology, and the potential participants :) We could probably float a less exact definition here and ask the AC to tell us if they think it's a problem or not.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 13:01:38 GMT

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