RE: Contacts API

Hi Suresh, Wonsuk, et al.

On 28 feb 2013 at 06:52:21, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
> Hi Wonsuk,
>
> .....
> ....
>
> From: Wonsuk Lee [mailto:wonsuk73@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February
> 27, 2013 11:25 PM To: Suresh Chitturi Cc: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA;
> wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; Adam Barth; public-sysapps@w3.org Subject: Re:
> Contacts API
>
> Hi. Suresh and all.
> Concerning to co-ordination issues on overlap areas btw DAP and SysApps
> WG, I sent a feedback to DAP WG like [1]. So far I didn't get any comment, so
> I would like to bring Contacts API spec to FPWD.
> But before that, I would like to get feedback for below comments in [1] from
> the groups (esp. editors of this spec). What do you think?
>
> Suresh>> Not being a member of Sys Apps group, I would let the editors
> comment first, but generally there is a strong interest/support on the DAP
> side for harmonization of the contact formats and semantics. The current
> contact format in DAP (independent of intents or non-intents approach) is
> the outcome of many prior discussions and viewed to be the best way
> forward without creating a dependency on a specific underlying formats but
> instead taking a "minimum subset' approach that can be implemented on top
> of underlying implementations (of course with an extensible mechanism).
> Contact formats in general is a moving target and therefore basing the APIs
> on a single format might be risky path!
>

I agree we should aim at aligning the contact's data model between DAP and SysApps specs. Actually the differences are not that big, so it should not be a problem. I propose the editors collaborate to reach this alignment. In any case the changes are mainly about naming or grouping of attributes, so IMO nothing so meaningful that should prevent the SysApps Contacts API draft to go to FPWD.


> <comments>
>
> In particular, regarding Contacts, we may want to (a) make sure that the
> data formats and meaning are consistent (fo interoperability) (b)  ask
> whether similar APIs across two groups should share a common API style
> and practices [2] and maybe even details apart from optional parameters
> or intentionally be different (whether it is better to enable
> commonality or make clear distinctions) </comments>
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0067.h

> tml [2] API checklist, http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ApiCheckList

>
> Best Regards,
> Wonsuk
>
> 2013/2/9 Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
> Hi Eduardo, all,
>
> Just wanted to point your attention to a parallel discussion [1] on Contacts
> API in DAP WG, with a bigger matter being the co-ordination between the
> DAP and SysApps on overlapping areas.
> Might make sense to wait just a little bit before proceeding to FPWD, given
> the impact this can have on the same.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0051.html

>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
> EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote on January 31, 2013 3:13 AM:
>> Hi Wonsuk, Adam,
>>
>> I didn't receive any feedback on this topic. Could we propose the
>> Contacts API draft as FPWD?
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Eduardo.
>>
>> EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote on e enero de 2013 17:38:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The authors of the two different Contacts API proposals agreed to take
>>> [1] as baseline, and issued a pull request to place the other proposal
>>> in a subfolder (/Contacts / input_docs) for future reference.
>>>
>>> Taken that into account I propose we publish current draft as FPWD.
>>> Adam, Wonsuk, what do you think?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Eduardo.
>>>
>>> [1] http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Contacts/Contacts.html

>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
>>> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
>>> en el enlace situado más abajo.
>>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
>>> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
>> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
>> situado más abajo.
>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
>> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 09:50:55 UTC