RE: Alarm API Feedback

Sorry I am late in responding.  To close the loop, I am satisfied that the current version of the Alarm API (as provided by Christophe in the email below) is sufficient to move forward to FPWD status.  I withdraw my object to making the Alarm API an FPWD.  

Thanks,
-Giri Mandyam, Qualcomm Innovation Center

-----Original Message-----
From: Christophe Dumez [mailto:christophe.dumez@intel.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:06 PM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: Jonas Sicking; public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Alarm API Feedback

The updated draft is still at the same URL: http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/alarm/Overview.html

The pull request with the changes (So you can quickly see what has changed):
https://github.com/sysapps/sysapps/pull/27

Kr,
--
Christophe Dumez, PhD
Linux Software Engineer
Intel Finland Oy - Open Source Technology Center


On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Christophe Dumez <christophe.dumez@intel.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:23 PM, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Are these things that really need to hold up a FPWD? FPWD is just the first stage of many and there is no expectation that the final specification will look *anything* like the version published as FPWD. So there will be ample time to address issues after the FPWD.
>> 
>> I've stated in a separate email that Calls-for-Exclusion apply to the FPWD.  Because of this, I'd like to see the FPWD reflect a workable version of the API.  The current Editor's Draft is not, but it looks like the editor has some changes in mind that could make the spec sufficient for an FPWD.  
>> 
>> Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward on this this spec too.  It also seems from the feedback provided by  Christophe and yourself, that there are some changes  that have been identified that would be possible for inclusion in the spec.  Given that, would it be possible for the editor to provide another version of the Alarm API spec with the some of the necessary changes (e.g. error codes, DST examples, etc.) soon?  I would at least like to see this next version of the spec before withdrawing my objection to  making this into an FPWD.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The draft has been updated to add error codes and DST examples already. Please let me know if you have comments.
> 
> Kr,
> --
> Christophe Dumez, PhD
> Linux Software Engineer
> Intel Finland Oy - Open Source Technology Center

Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 17:17:58 UTC