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

Re: Re: Should (some of the) ContactField objects use URLs rather than free-form strings? ( LC-2514)

From: <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:10:53 +0000
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org,Device APIs and Policy Working Group WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1Qj98X-0002SN-G3@jessica.w3.org>

 Dear Dominique Hazael-Massieux ,

The Device APIs and Policy Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Contacts API published
on 16 Jun 2011. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document
and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-device-apis@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 1 September
2011. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Device APIs and Policy Working Group,
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
Thomas Roessler
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/1307545584.17453.3.camel@altocumulustier
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-contacts-api-20110616/


=====

Your comment on the document as a whole:
> Le mercredi 08 juin 2011 à 14:26 +0200, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> > >> For photos I think it's an easy win. The current draft has Base64
> or
> > >> URI. We could just have URI, indicating that if it's Base64 it can
> be
> > >> a data: URI (and it could also be a blob: URI).
> > > 
> > > Photos are clearly my #1 request; having a field that can have both
> URLs
> > > and binary-encoded-data-but-not-a-data-URL seems like non-sense.
> > 
> > For photos I certainly agree that it's a bug in the spec to have the
> two variants that we currently have.
> 
> As discussed during the call, let's start with fixing this for photos,
> and leave the other fields alone for the time being. Based on
> implementers/developers feedback, we can always revisit that later.
> 
> That would be the resolution for ISSUE-111.
> 
> Dom


Working Group Resolution (LC-2514):
Fixed in photos  by using a URL

----
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 12:10:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:49 UTC