- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:10:13 +0200
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, "<richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>" <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Marcin Hanclik<Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote: > Hi Marcos, > >>>True. Use cases and requirements first. > +1 > >>>We should totally ignore the >>>fact that APIs have been contributed. > Please do not combine versioning with contributions. These are different things. Yes. I was certainly not passing judgment on contributions. > BTW: I do not say that any contributed API should be taken as is, but why to reinvent the wheel? I agree. No wheel-reinvention, but lets get those requirements done first. Then we grab contributions (wheels) and see where they fit. > The contributed APIs seem to be based on various governing principles / design patterns and probably they could be discussed first with the hope that a set of principles could be found that would combine the best of the contributed ones and that we could agree on them. > Yes, that is also true. Using an iterative model is good. But we have to be careful and clear that nothing is set in stone at this point. Everyone needs to be prepared to make comprises, and even be prepared to start from scratch if need be. >>> and then, once we know what the >>>problems are, look at what APIs solve the problems/use cases. The we >>>avoid having "a solution looking for a problem". > > The initial problem is that there is no device API in W3C, I think. > And the contributions just try to help solve this problem. Heh, I like this "problem solved" approach... if only it was that easy :) -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 16:11:18 UTC