- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 00:07:34 +0200
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On May 13, 2009, at 19:17 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> There is currently also a different model for collection handling
> between BONDI specs and W3C specs.
> All BONDI specs create Arrays based on WebIDL's sequence<T> for
> collections, whereas File Upload and e.g. WebStorage create specific
> list interface with item() method(s).
This isn't a general difference, it's largely historical and concerns
specs that were defined before WebIDL was. I wouldn't be surprised if
FU were changed to use sequence<> as well.
> I think that both specs have to be kept separately, whereas we could
> foresee that e.g. FileUpload could be based on FileSystem API, since
> FS API is richer for the overlapping interfaces (read-write vs. read-
> only). Alternatively the overlapping parts could be moved into
> another (sub)spec.
I'm pretty sure that the two groups can work together on this. We
probably don't even need a TF for it. As far as the charter is
concerned I'd put something along the lines of "collaborating to make
sure the file-related APIs are synchronised" — I think it ought to be
enough.
> Definitely we should avoid name clashes, i.e. if both specs would
> define something called now "File" interface, one of them should
> change the name of that interface in case there is no agreement to
> merge or clearly relate those specs.
Not that I foresee that happening but if we get to a place where we
have clashes and no agreement to resolve them we have a very serious
issue. I would expect this to be solved long before it gets there.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 22:08:18 UTC