- From: Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:51:44 +0100
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Art, This is great news, thanks for helping getting this moving. Two points to respond on: 1) Strawman starting point: we would like to remind all that the BONDI candidate release, previously submitted by David to this list (also offered under the W3C Patent Policy) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Feb/0006.html represents an alternative strawman, with slightly wider scope. Encouragingly, the detailed difference between the APIs I believe to be quite close. Our current anticipated timelines predict the final version of these documents to be available at the end of May. These APIs also have the advantage that they represent a consensus position between the many companies that are actively engaged in BONDI (and majority of them as well as in W3C). This BONDI release also includes a concrete proposal on a security model, a comprehensive test suite and of course and implementation available as open source. All of these elements are available in the candidate release. We will update this list as soon as the final versions are available. 2) Charter: this initial input looks good - a few early comments: a) Do we have to be tighter on scope of APIs? The charter presumably helps form part of the practical sandbox for RF commitments. Given the issues with Geolocation, I would have anticipated that this may be an issue, upon which we need clarity. (To be clear I think here I would personally advocate wide rather than narrow scope, but important that this is raised.) b) Should policy description and APIs be in the same charter. There are arguments both sides, and as we discussed briefly in Boston, I am sympathetic to the Nokia position. It is critical however, that if they are, under the same charter that the security element be identified as a distinct deliverable, with potentially different timelines. I will raise this issue internally and try to get a formal OMTP consensus position on this issue (ie separate security charter vs APIs). We also have some ongoing conversations with W3C staff on this same issue that we hope to resolve shortly. 3) Contribution and editor resources. Similarly, we can offer the editor and strong support on the resourcing sides should this go forward. We will report back on the detail (names) soon. Regards Nick Allott (on behalf of David Rogers, who is currently travelling) - nick -----Original Message----- From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: 24 April 2009 01:19 To: public-device-apis@w3.org Subject: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs" We want to standardize some of the "Concrete APIs" discussed at last December's Device API workshop [1]. More specifically, we propose creating specifications for the following APIs: 1. Calendar 2. Camera 3. Contacts (aka Address Book) 4. Messaging 5. System Information For each of the above APIs, I attached a separate input and an appendix that includes common definitions shared by some of these APIs. We offer these inputs, under the terms of the W3C Patent Policy, as a starting point (strawman proposals) for the standardization effort. We also propose the attached draft Charter for a new Working Group whose deliverables will include these APIs. If the W3C agrees to add these APIs to a WG Charter, we will commit resources to drive the specification work including the Editor role. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] <http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report#Concrete> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2079 - Release Date: 04/25/09 08:29:00
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 12:52:17 UTC