W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-nfc@w3.org > January 2014

RE: Do we need Tag and Peer when reading NDEF messages?

From: Yriarte, Luc <luc.yriarte@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:46:10 +0000
To: Don Coleman <dcoleman@chariotsolutions.com>, "public-nfc@w3.org" <public-nfc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8A6036327A83774CAEB939CB8A720E83457F6AAD@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com>
Definitely agree on a nfc.onmessage API, directly on the NFCManager

interface. On the platforms you mention that may be the only easily

implementable option.



I'd keep the tag / peer distinction as that's relevant for other tasks

like formating tags, llcp... Eventually we may end up with a core NFC

API limited to NDEF, and extensions for NFC tag and peer to peer. That

could be easier to manage from the implementer point of view.


From: Don Coleman [mailto:dcoleman@chariotsolutions.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:31 PM
To: public-nfc@w3.org
Subject: Do we need Tag and Peer when reading NDEF messages?

For incoming messages, do we care if the message came from a peer or a tag? The current Windows and BlackBerry webworks API just give you an NDEF message, they don't indicate a source.

Since we're only covering NDEF, the tag is almost irrelevant, unless we want to allow implementers to be able to add tag meta data (id, nfc forum tag type, technology, size, locked/unlocked, writable).

Incoming messages could be handled by nfc.onmessage. This could make reading messages much simpler.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 17:46:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:37 UTC