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

RE: updated draft charter

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:38:43 +0000
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C350FF05A46@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>
OK, if "An API to manage the system's settings (including notably time/clock settings and personal preferences)" implicitly includes the ability to manage preferences related to privacy, and the ability for apps to provide relevant privacy-related info that is needed by the user in managing those preferences. But I would prefer that this was explicit, to avoid having to rely later on this email thread in support for these objectives in the system settings API.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:36 AM
To: W3C SysApps
Subject: Re: updated draft charter

What changes in wording are needed if any?

For instance, do we need to make explicit that system settings includes
personal preferences for devices used by multiple people?

Do we need to make it explicit that preferences include privacy and
security settings?

I suspect this isn't necessary as it would lead to having to be very
explicit about the kinds of settings we will/won't cover.

Is the following wording sufficient:

System Settings API

An API to manage the system's settings (including notably time/clock
settings and personal preferences).


On 07/06/12 23:11, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> Good enough, to know its on the radar. I don't think I saw that
> explicitly in the charter but I will look again. That's really my
> main request, that the scope objective be clear, rather than just say
> "must consider privacy".
> 
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
> 
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:05 PM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 19:30 , SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>>> [bryan] Does "system settings" mean this is unspecified, or would
>>> we define requirements at least? The point of the API I
>>> recommended is that we need a semantic, normative way for apps to
>>> make privacy assertions and for the user to accept them in
>>> informed consent. The management of privacy preferences on a
>>> system wide basis I agree is a detail of system settings, but
>>> will there be an API for that? If there isn't I think it will be
>>> difficult to promote a consistent privacy experience for users,
>>> i.e. the experience on different devices may vary widely. We
>>> would like to avoid that by providing this as an appropriately
>>> permitted app that can be deployed across different Web-based
>>> devices.
>>
>> I don't want to presume of the shape that it will take at this
>> point. I think that the important thing to note is that this falls
>> under the scope of system settings. Beyond that, whether system
>> settings look like a regular preferences API with some preferences
>> being specified with defined, required behaviour, or if it's a
>> bunch of different small APIs, is really up to the group to decide.
>> I suspect it will be the former, and I would very much support it
>> including mandatory privacy settings, but I don't believe that that
>> ought be solved now (the sooner we charter, the sooner the group
>> can address that :)

-- 
Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 21:39:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 June 2012 21:39:32 GMT