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

RE: Shelving "Device APIs Requirements"

From: Deepanshu gautam <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:48:47 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: DAP <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-id: <DA22857AC9F15C469BB47FE88C0201292A92BE5E@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In that case, I would suggest the following for requirements darft.

"WARNING:  This draft is no longer active or group has decided not to revise it further. The requirements defined in this draft are outdated and by no means shall form the basis of contributions to the group. The Device APIs WG is currently not pursuing the approach outlined in this draft, so it should be considered expired. Please treat this document with caution and do not reference it or use it as the basis for implementation."

Note that it is specifically for requirements draft.

Regards

Deepanshu Gautam
Service Standards, Huawei Software
T: +86 25 5260008 M: +86 135 85147627


-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:41 PM
To: Deepanshu gautam
Cc: DAP
Subject: Re: Shelving "Device APIs Requirements"

On Nov 16, 2011, at 01:58 , Deepanshu gautam wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong in having a groups (DAP) requirements in one single document.

It is largely a matter of not having to republish it continuously; the less we have to synchronise on things that are not core functionality, the better off we are.

> But, anyway in this case I suggest to remove (expired??) this document completely not shelved. If shelved then it is creating confusion i.e requirement document is shelved bcz group thinks it is not needed whereas Messaging API is shelved bcz group is working on something else which works better.

The difference between the two situations is genuine, which is why I think that the warning/shelving message needs to be adapted to each situation. However we can't remove things from /TR/. These URIs are meant to be persistent in time. There are documents (outside of our control) that link to http://www.w3.org/TR/dap-api-reqs/. Those should not get a 404 (or even a 410), but are better served by getting an updated document that is self-describing as outdated.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 15:52:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:24 GMT