W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: New simple API version with aspect support

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:44:19 -0500
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D39C6C23@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: José Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es>
Cc: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

Excellent! Thank you José.
In an earlier version that I proposed, a collection of aspects could be represented as terms of a vocabulary. In today's updated Simple API, an aspect is merely a unique term that may or may not be part of a vocabulary of such terms. The approach is different but equally powerful. The missing part of this picture is a definition of core aspects that will accompany the Core Vocabulary. I believe that today in our weekly conference we proposed "browser" (or Web Client or just Software?) to be one aspect, and "Platform" (or Hardware?) to be another aspect. Perhaps just these two would be enough for the Simple API, and we could record them formally in the specification document. People are free to create other aspects of their own if they wish.
For more programming features the community can look forward to the Advanced API, and meanwhile the Simple API looks like it will be powerful enough for the primary use cases. I encourage people to read through the code (which will be the formal Java binding of the API).
Thanks again.


From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org on behalf of José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
Sent: Mon 11/02/2008 17:07
To: José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New simple API version with aspect support

The new version can be downloaded from SVN at


The code can be browsed in


Best Regards

José Manuel Cantera Fonseca escribió:
> Hi all,
> As agreed I have just uploaded a new version of the Java simple API
> for DD. The new version includes aspect support and the cataloguing
> functions supported by Jo. Also it includes the new newProperty
> factory methods that avoid dealing directly with Strings in the
> getProperty methods.
> Please note that the getPropertyValue methods do not deal with Strings
> and I think this is part of the beauty of this API compared to WURFL's
> (btw Luca has just announced a new version of the WURFL API :) ).
> IMHO saying that something is String is saying nothing, but using
> something more specifically typed is good for our interface and for
> standardization purposes.
> That's all for now
> Best Regards
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 20:44:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:51 UTC