- From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:08:26 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Robin, I suppose my point was misunderstood or I expressed myself not clearly enough. By "on the implementation" level I mean how the content (being usually intelligent, e.g. by checking some UA parameters, e.g. by hasFeature()) can discover the capabilities of the UA. I did not mean that the UA implementation is intentionally marked incorrectly. >>WGs don't generally >>object to having people implement drafts early, so long as said people >>make it clear to their customers that they're not selling a stable >>long term solution, and so long as they don't claim conformance to >>anything. >>If anyone is getting the impression that WD=CR=PR=Rec the vendors are >>to blame I'm afraid. As stated above this is not the intended subject of my email. Still, for the content implemented based on WD or CR or PR or Rec, there is currently no way in Widgets 1.0 specs to discover which particular version of the WD was taken as basis for the potential WUA implementation. And versioning model for both content and WUA could help here, I think. If my intentions are now clearer, I would be happy to hear your comments on them. Thanks. Kind regards, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com -----Original Message----- From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:29 PM To: Marcin Hanclik Cc: marcosc@opera.com; Thomas Roessler; Arthur Barstow; Nick Allott; public-device-apis@w3.org Subject: Re: ACCESS' input, was: RE: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs" Hi Marcin, On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:55 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: > I do not claim that W3C is slow (quality and process matters for me > as well) and agree with your comments on this. > My issue is that on the implementation level you cannot distinguish > WD from CR/PR/Rec. Yes, you can, it's called an alpha version. This is very clearly the case of an API that may change and for which the authors do not guarantee that they won't break compatibility. WGs don't generally object to having people implement drafts early, so long as said people make it clear to their customers that they're not selling a stable long term solution, and so long as they don't claim conformance to anything. > But now WD=CR=PR=Rec. People simple do not know what they buy. If anyone is getting the impression that WD=CR=PR=Rec the vendors are to blame I'm afraid. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/ ________________________________________ Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 15:09:40 UTC