W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

RE: System Level API spec editors

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:54:20 +0000
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A3FBA71C5@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
There are a bunch of systems that already have similar, but incompatible APIs for these things.  What we see as the purpose of the proposed WG is to provide a forum where at least some of those can be consolidated into a standard set of APIs.  We don't see it as a bad thing that that would happen with a lot of specs.  That's really the point.  

Doing it with one or two specs would be fairly useless.  Intel would not support vastly cutting back this proposed WG.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:47 PM
>To: Poussa, Sakari
>Cc: Carr, Wayne; public-sysapps@w3.org
>Subject: Re: System Level API spec editors
>
>Thanks Sakari.  Three seems much more achievable than 12.  :)
>
>I'm hoping to collate all the information folks have sent to the list and to propose
>an updated draft of the charter on Monday.
>
>Adam
>
>
>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Poussa, Sakari <sakari.poussa@intel.com> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I think the top ones from that list would be:
>>
>> 1. Bluetooth
>> 2. Telephony
>> 3. Power / Resource management
>>
>> You asked 1 or 2, I gave you 3 - sorry about that ;)
>>
>> For Bluetooth, I think we have a reasonable API in Tizen. At least we
>> spent a lot of time with it.
>>
>> For Telephony, while quite complex this would put the security model
>> in test.
>>
>> For power/resource, this should be simple enough to get things going
>> and agree on style, etc. topics.
>>
>> -sakari
>>
>>
>> On 6/1/12 1:33 PM, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>>
>>>This list is too long.  Even if we find a dozen qualified editors to
>>>work on these drafts, the working group won't have the bandwidth to
>>>review that many specs at the start, and the result will be
>>>low-quality specs.
>>>
>>>Do you have one or two of these that are most important to work on first?
>>>
>>>Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> We will need to go through our usual (very long) approval process to
>>>> participate in the WG, but we can make a provisional offer to edit
>>>> the following specs.  This is an offer for after we get our internal
>>>> (Legal) approval and the WG is approved and starts.
>>>>
>>>> Mozilla indicted they may offer editors for some, so we would be
>>>>offering to  join them on any that overlap ­ and we hope others offer
>>>>editors for these  or the other specs too.  We assume the WG will
>>>>choose editors and that specs  will have multiple editors.
>>>>
>>>> Specs we would offer editors for (we¹re also still looking at another):
>>>>
>>>> Sensors API. Examples: No sample draft, but previous work was done
>>>>in DAP,  likely Web Intents based and including sensors in local
>>>>network.
>>>>
>>>> Network Interface API. Examples: B2G Mobile Connection, B2G WiFi
>>>> Information.
>>>>
>>>> Secure Elements API. Examples: none
>>>>
>>>> Alarm API. Examples: Tizen Alarm
>>>>
>>>> Calendar API. Examples: B2G Calendar, Tizen Calendar
>>>>
>>>> Contacts API. Examples: Tizen Contacts, B2G Contacts
>>>>
>>>> NFC API. B2G Web NFC, Tizen NFC
>>>>
>>>> Accounts API. Examples: none
>>>>
>>>> Bluetooth API. Examples: Tizen Bluetooth, B2G Web Bluetooth
>>>>
>>>> Media Storage API. Example: Tizen Media Content.
>>>>
>>>> Power Management API. Example: B2G Power Management
>>>>
>>>> Resource Lock API. Example: B2G Resource Lock
>>>>
>>>> Telephony API. Examples: B2G Web Telephony, Tizen Call
>>>>
>>>
>>
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 20:54:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 June 2012 20:54:52 GMT