W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > May 2012

Re: System Level APIs draft proposal

From: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:33:15 +0200
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBC6C810.60A0%niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
I would prefer to have browser-safe and non-browser-safe APIs in one WG.
Potentially two specs (or two different sections in spec or something) per
API depending on security solution, but I think the work will only end up
in confusion with two Wgs doing very similar things. The reason for
watered-down browser safe APIs in DAP was that nobody seemed to want to
implement the non-browser-safe ones at one point in time, if implementors
perception of this has changed I thing we should recharter DAP

(n.b. There are also a couple of APIs in the proposal that does not have
corresponding DAP apis, I see no reason why these couldn't be added to DAP
charter, actually added back for a couple of them)

Best Regards
Niklas Widell
Ericsson AB

On 2012-04-30 19:43, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote:

>There is overlap on a number of items because while DAP addresses those
>items they don't enable everything a native could do (C, etc, with direct
>OS API access).  So the topic being in scope in the System Level API WG
>does not mean DAP doesn't cover some of the functionality.  It means DAP
>likely doesn't cover all of it.  If DAP does cover all of it, the new WG
>won't have to.  The WGs likely would coordinate that.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tran, Dzung D [mailto:dzung.d.tran@intel.com]
>>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:07 AM
>>To: Robin Berjon; public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: System Level APIs draft proposal
>>We had a System Info API and that was abandoned, so my question is what
>>be our approach going forward to ensure that all the efforts do not get
>>abandoned? Also, in this draft proposal, you mentioned about Sensor API,
>>but we
>>have a draft of Sensor API now. Would this Sensor API spec be rolled
>>into the
>>System Level APIs?
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
>>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 8:28 AM
>>To: public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org
>>Subject: System Level APIs draft proposal
>>Hi all,
>>during our last face to face meeting it emerged that there was interest
>>in there
>>being another working group that would work on System Level APIs, of the
>>that would be too dangerous to include in a browser but that would be
>>useful if
>>you wanted to build a Web-based OS, be it through "traditional"
>>applications or
>>with some form of browser extension system.
>>I looked around the existing landscape and had a variety of chats with
>>who expressed interest in the topic, and put together a draft charter.
>>Please note that this draft is just my personal input, it does not
>>represent the
>>consensus of anyone other than myself, is not endorsed by whoever, etc.
>>    http://darobin.github.com/system-level-apis-charter/
>>Your feedback is welcome!
>>Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 09:34:16 UTC

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