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

RE: DAP Roadmap, priorities

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:04:44 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01B5800F@email2>
To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: "public-device-apis" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Dear Dom and all.

If there is no objection, I am willing to be a volunteer for the Gallery API spec. ;-)
As an editor of API for Media Resource 1.0, my opinions is as below.

I think even if Gallery API is closely related with API for Media Resource 1.0, this is basically different.
Because API for Media Resource 1.0 is to provide the unified API for application developer to access metadata in independence of different formats. Nothing is more. On the other hand Gallery API should be more abstract level API to manage and show the media files in the perspective of application developer.

Best regards,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:29 PM
> To: public-device-apis
> Subject: DAP Roadmap, priorities
> Hi,
> Per my ACTION-60, I have started working on a roadmap for our WG
> deliverables at:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#roadmap

> I have listed at the top the APIs that were identified as our priorities
> in one of our early teleconfs [1], although we didn’t make it a formal
> resolution as far as I can tell. The APIs we agree to work on in
> priority [2] are:
> • Contacts
> • Calendar
> • Filesystems
> • Messaging
> Note that at this time, we only have active work on the Contacts API in
> that list, and some discussions around Filesystems — the lack of work on
> the two others is somewhat worrying. I think it would be useful to get
> people volunteering to come up with Editors drafts for Calendar and
> Messaging at the very least.
> I have heard several people thinking that the photo/audio/video capture
> API should also be a priority (myself included, actually), so maybe this
> is something we should reconsider.
> I would be also useful if the WG could approve the rough schedule
> (ideally after having agreed on more specifics for the priority APIs).
> I haven’t put any policy-related spec in the table, since I don’t think
> we have a very clear idea on how they are going to be articulated at
> this point; but when/if we do, we should definitely add them to the
> table.
> Ideally, we should discuss that roadmap each time we fall behind
> schedule on any of the priority items and update it after that
> discussion. I hope the Chairs can take responsibility for this, but I’ll
> try to watch this as well.
> I have also started listing API that we will not work on (per previous
> discussions), as well as APIs that have been suggested for future work
> (which matches Robin’s ACTION-56), although that latter list might be
> usefully moved to a wiki page as suggesting in the said action item.
> Dom
> 1.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Sep/att-

> 0050/Device_APIs_and_Policy_Working_Group_Teleconference_--
> _16_Sep_2009.htm#item07
> 2. this also takes of Robin’s ACTION-55; this might also take care of
> Frederick’s ACTION-57, although this is not in the wiki

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 02:05:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:13 UTC