- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:20:34 +0200
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 28 Apr 2009, at 23:54, Marcin Hanclik wrote: > 2. The scope of the Device API WG should be extensible. Given the way in which the patent policy and process work, that's not likely to happen. However, Working Groups can be re-chartered as they go, to extend scope and add new deliverables. That re-chartering doesn't come cheaply, though, so you won't want to do it too often. Therefore, it will be important to identify what set of APIs should take priority for a first round of work, and to put these into the initial charter. > As an example please consider that BONDI IF WG defines now 14 > different sets of APIs. There is partial overlapping between those > APIs and the work pursued in W3C, specifically for the Location API > and preferences from Widgets 1.0. There should be a clear plan to > unify those APIs. It would be "interesting" for a newly chartered group to step into the scopes of the existing work on widgets and geolocation; my advice would be that BONDI participants interested in these points make their input known to the working groups that are already operating in these fields as quickly as at all possible. As an aside, I understand that there's some progress toward last call working drafts in both groups. > Having API versioning model seems to be semantically equivalent to > the updates of the Working Drafts in W3C, but in my personal > opinion, API versioning model is more transparent to the actual API > user and shall be discoverable by the web application code. I don't quite understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting deployment of draft APIs as working drafts are issued?
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 11:20:46 UTC