W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs"

From: Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:51:44 +0100
Message-ID: <05AA561A00287D45B70AE18BC37624C902140D6F@exch-be05.exchange.local>
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>

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)


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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:09 UTC