W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:06:19 +0200
To: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA <efc@tid.es>, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3c.org" <public-webapps@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <CC948AA5.2B994%blsaws@gmail.com>
Hi all,

With Eduardo's help I updated the spec [1] for Art's comments as below.
Here is a summary from the commit:
- security section text
- service bindings text
- more info on serverProtocols
- updated the definitions
- additional references (I still need to update the respec biblio)
- example code and flow in the Framework section
- general editorial cleanup

I would like to request a CFC for FPWD publication, if there are no more
substantive comments on the updated version. We look forward to a good
discussion on this API during TPAC and would like that to occur on a FPWD

Bryan Sullivan

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html

On 9/27/12 3:09 AM, "EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA" <efc@tid.es> wrote:

>On 27 sep 2012 at 05:51:51, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback, Art. I've responded below. I will work on a new
>> draft to address as many of your comments as I can.
>> Thanks,
>> Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | AT&T
>> +1-425-580-6514
>> Arthur Barstow wrote on September 26, 2012 11:59 AM:
>>> specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]
>>> On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>>>> We've previously called for any comments to the current Push API draft
>>> [1], and would like to promote it to FPWD before TPAC. We haven't
>>> received any substantive comments as far as I know, which tells me that
>>> it could be in good shape for publication. With the addition of
>>> Telefonica (Eduardo) as co-editor and simplification / better alignment
>>> with proposals for B2G / Firefox OS, I believe we are in shape for FPWD
>>> now. So if I could request a CFC for publication as FPWD before Oct 15,
>>> that would be our preference.
>>>> Alternatively we can put this on the agenda for TPAC and
>>> discuss/promote it then as possible. But in the absence of substantive
>>> comments (which tells me we have addressed most of the comments on the
>>> first ED), I think we should be ready for FPWD.
>>>> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
>>> The requirements for FPWD are relatively loose but because the
>>> publication of a FPWD starts a Call for (IP) Exclusions, it is helpful
>>> for some reviewers if the breath of the spec is mostly complete,
>>> although the depth can certainly be lacking.
>>> What is your view on the set of features/scope? Is the ED covering most
>>> of the scope? If there are any high priority features missing, what are
>>> they?
>> IMO the ED is covering the scope well. I don't think any high priority
>> are missing. We removed some of the earlier proposed features in the
>> current draft.
>I agree we are covering most of the scope. It is a matter of adding more
>>> Based on a very quick scan, I noticed:
>>> * The Privacy and Security section is empty and I think it would be
>>> helpful if some additional informational was added before FPWD.
>> I have some text I can add for that.
>>> * The Specific Service Bindings section is empty. It seems like this
>>> should have some information before FPWD, especially if it is going to
>>> be a normative section. (Are some of these "bindings" specified outside
>>> the W3C?)
>> I think this was intended to be an informative section, unless at least
>> one push service is proposed to be standardized. I can provide
>> informative text for SMS, SIP, and OMA Push. Browser-specific push
>> serices could also be included.
>>> * Push Framework - it appears this section should be marked as
>>> non-normative. I think it would be helpful if some type of flow diagram
>>> was included as well as example application code to use the API
>>> (although this non-normative info is not necessarily a blocker for
>>> FPWD).
>> Agreed, this should be informative.
>Yes, it is intended to be an informative section. Flow diagram would
>definitely be useful, though not necessary to go to FPWD
>>> * serverProtocols - what are the expectations for the "valid" set of
>>> values; where are they specified?
>> Good question. We need some means of registration of well-known services
>> so the protocols can be recognized.
>>> Some editorial comments ...
>>> * Define "Web Intent Push Service provider", "Push server" and "webapp"
>>> or add a link to the definitions.
>> Will do.
>>> * Update the references that are out of date (e.g. HTML5).
>> Will do. This is respec.js magic.
>>> * Not clear what onopen event is since it isn't part of the PushService
>>> API
>> I think this may have been an omission, or we were thinking to use a
>> for changes to the readyState as the "open" event. I will check with
>> on that.
>I think for the time being we can remove onopen as there is no other
>reference to it in the draft.
>>> -Thanks, Art
>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:
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 11:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:49 UTC