W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [discovery-api] Supporting UPnP devices

From: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:39:30 +0100
Message-ID: <514A1072.3080007@opera.com>
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
CC: public-device-apis@w3.org
Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
> I have currently a full implementation of the current spec.
>
> The only problem I have is the "name" field, which I implement in a
> non-standard way so that it works in my usage scenarios.
>
> On one hand, this proposal is well designed, and on the other hand, it
> is definitely overkill to solve the only problem I have with the current
> spec.
>
> So no, I am not in favor of this rather extensive change.
> Best regards
> JC

I certainly feel this pain (having to rewrite both the spec and an 
impl). It is the price that is paid for living on the bleeding edge of 
emerging standards. (Also, kudos to you for getting an implementation up 
and running. Would love to hear more about it on this list! We _really_ 
need to kick-start some serious testing discussion now that multiple 
implementations are starting to emerge).

Unfortunately, I think spec changes are an occupational hazard of 
implementing from W3C Editor's Drafts which are, by their very 
definition, unstable and subject to changes. _If_ we have good reasons 
to make a change to s specification then it would be better to do that 
earlier (i.e. now) than ignore potentially valid and beneficial use 
cases in the long run.

My suggestion is that we snapshot and publish the current specification 
and you can then claim compliance* to this permanent, dated Working 
Draft version of the specification.

- Rich

* 'compliance' only in the sense that the implementation has been 
written in good faith to reflect the specification - not that it has 
passed any (currently non-existant but ultimately necessary) compliance 
test suite.
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 19:40:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:58 UTC