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

Re: ACCESS' input, was: RE: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs"

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:00:48 -0400
Message-Id: <3D6455BF-6FF8-4856-AD30-8E1031637FF6@nokia.com>
Cc: Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
To: ext Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>

On Apr 28, 2009, at 5:54 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> ACCESS would like to welcome and support the idea of the creation  
> of the Device API WG in W3C.


> The "associated inputs" from BONDI as quoted below are close to  
> trivial, I agree. BONDI contributors have developed tools to split  
> the actual semantics of the specifications from their actual  
> syntax; this is valid specifically for the BONDI Interfaces  
> specification expressed in WebIDL with the associated HTML  
> documentation. It shall be quite easy to transform this input to  
> follow the W3C's standard specification layout.

It's good to know it will be trivial for you to extract the APIs you  
proposed. More on this below ...

> Please allow a few more weeks for those specifications to be  
> released, since there is the overwhelming amount of supportive  
> comments from many BONDI contributors that both BONDI WGs want to  
> accommodate in the initial, stable version of the specifications.  
> The current plan in BONDI is to have those specifications ready by  
> the end of May/2009 at the latest. I think it is better to input to  
> W3C the most agreed and verified specifications at that slightly  
> later time than to be in a hurry and provide unstable or clearly  
> buggy inputs.

Well, standards organization being what they are, it is probably safe  
to assume things won't go as quickly as we'd like (either on the W3C  
side or OTMP side). Given this, our shared goal of completing Charter  
discussions "soon", and the trivial task it will be for you to create  
useful inputs for the work item items you propose, then for each of  
the work items you do propose, please provide some details.

We will not be able to evaluate e.g. from an IPR perspective, the  
work items you proposed without more details than the one line  
description you provided.

Google provided a reasonable precedence by providing a draft of their  
Location API before requesting it be added to a Charter. We followed  
that model with our proposed Charter and straw-man APIs because we  
believe others will need some details to evaluate the work items and  

I don't think anyone needs fully-baked inputs and a pointer to the  
details would certainly be OK with me.

> 2. The scope of the Device API WG should be extensible.

I agree with the concerns Thomas raised about this.

> 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.

If you or anyone else wants to influence the Location API or the  
Widgets specs or any other work item, then do so by directly joining  
the appropriate WG and contributing in that WG.

> I hope we will have further fruitful discussion about the charter  
> and will reach the consensus soon.

Yes; agreed.

-Regards, Art Barstow
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 20:01:51 UTC

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