Possible Coremob topic: network efficiency and APIs (& OMA Device Apps Network Efficiency)

Dear CoreMob participants:

The Device APIs working group (DAP) received a liaison statement from OMA (see below and attachment) regarding Device Apps Network Efficiency [1].

We think that this could be a topic best discussed in coremob, so maybe it should be added to the list of  items to consider going forward.

I should note that Tobie shared some comments on the DAP public list suggesting a good approach might be to create APIs that make efficiency transparent to developers  [2].

What do you think of  further discussing this work in coremob, and coordinating with OMA on the topic?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair, W3C DAP Working Group

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/att-0098/minutes-2013-02-20.html#item06


[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0058.html





Begin forwarded message:

> From: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
> Date: January 25, 2013 11:14:49 AM EST
> To: <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <bs3131@att.com>, Frederick.Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
> Subject: Liaison statement from OMA on network efficiency
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have received a liaison statement from OMA on a new acitivity they're
> starting, called Device Apps Network Efficiency (DANE) — see attached
> document.
>
> The Device APIs Working Group is specifically called out as one of the
> targets of the document.
>
> They are asking a review from their proposed work, as well as a summary
> of existing W3C work in this space.
>
> My own reading of the liaison statement is that at the very least, our
> work on the Network Information API has some relevance to that work (one
> could imaging that browsers would use DANE to get information about e.g.
> the available bandwidth).
>
> We have also discussed several times (but without any concrete proposal
> that I know of) providing more advanced capabilities to optimize Web
> apps usage of network capabilities — it would be useful if someone could
> summarize our existing discussions to date, esp. if they could be source
> of requirements for that work.
>
> Brian, I believe you're active in OMA, so if you have further input /
> insight on useful input we could gather for OMA here, that would be
> welcome.
>
> Frederick, it's probably worth adding to the agenda of our next call
> (Feb 6).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dom