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

Re: Shelving Intents-based specs

From: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:52:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAxVY9cKyZ24Gig+BZb2+z4LrYZEz4ioc5btB67ZAa0M9yn5Uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>, "jsoref@blackberry.com" <jsoref@blackberry.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Looks good to me. Shall I make this change and publish it, or is that
something you need to do?


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:

> Greg
>
> I think we can handle the status of the Web Intents neatly by publishing
> as a WG WG Note ( as Art suggested in his response to the CfC).
>
> In conjunction with publishing as a W3C WG Note, I would suggest adding
> the following text as part of the revision of the status section of the
> document:
>
> "This document was produced by the Web Activities Task Force, a joint
> activity of the Device APIs Working Group (linked) and the Web Applications
> Working Group (linked). Members of these working groups have agreed  not to
> progress the Web Intents specification further as a Recommendation track
> document, electing to publish it as an informative Working Group Note. The
> Working Groups have not performed interop testing on the material in this
> document. Implementers are cautioned that this material is subject to
> change and that an alternative design may be pursued in the future."
>
> This can be followed by a summary of changes since the last Working Draft
> publication (and redline)
>
> I suggest we do this assuming there is support and no objection to this
> approach - comments are welcome ( CfC closes this Friday 17 May, so
> responses to CfC on list re publishing Web Intents as WG Note would be
> useful).
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 7:06 PM, ext Greg Billock wrote:
>
> > I have a TODO to mark the web intents spec as... what should I do? I'm
> not sure the correct wording. The idea is "we hope this is useful for
> further consideration, so we aren't deleting it, but it's not intended to
> be implemented as is."
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
> wrote:
> > How difficult is it to bring them back to active development if we get
> some traction e.g. on intents or activities? Can we continue to develop
> them as notes? I would rather not move them to notes too fast. As noted in
> the meeting I think the issues with intents and activities UI need more
> investigation before we pull the plug.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bryan Sullivan
> >
> >
> > ------ Original message------
> > From: Josh Soref
> > Date: Fri, 4/26/2013 2:29 PM
> > To: Robin Berjon;DAP;
> > Subject:Re: Shelving Intents-based specs
> >
> > Sadly, I support shelving at this time, until such a time as an Intents
> or similar mechanism appears.
> >
> > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> > From: Robin Berjon
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:57 PM
> > To: DAP
> > Subject: Shelving Intents-based specs
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to suggest that we shelve all the specs we have out there that
> > depend on Intents (e.g. Pick Contacts), including parking as Note. The
> > reason I ask is that I'm getting reports of people being confused by
> > this (notably, it would seem, in SysApps) and while Intents are
> > relatively stalled there is no hope of it progressing anyway, so we
> > might as well make that clear to people.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 16:53:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:59 UTC