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

RE: Status of DAP Requirements

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:32:06 -0800
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD0FC53BD4@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Based upon the discussion on this in today's meeting I guess I now
understand the approach toward editing the requirements document a bit
better... thanks to Robin for clarifying that. 

I will update the draft with the requirements I suggested (with changes
for the feedback received so far on the list, as there has been some),
and we can then consider the overall document as I mentioned.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:59 AM
To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Status of DAP Requirements

This is a followup on the points I raised at the end of the F2F, about
the status of the DAP API requirements and the state of the input
collection process we are currently in.

It is my understanding based upon the history of the inputs to the DAP
requirements that the requirements collection process is still underway
and that all input should be treated equally and without prejudice. We
have not yet reached a consensus on the baseline requirements, and the
requirements are certainly not frozen. However the input that AT&T
provided to the following API's has not been included in the draft
requirements document (email titles below):

[Device APIs Requirements] Input to Messaging API
[Device APIs Requirements] Input to Gallery API
[Device APIs Requirements] Input to File API
[Device APIs Requirements] Input to Applauncher API
[Device APIs Requirements] Input to Camera API
[Device APIs Requirements] Input to Communications Log API
[Device APIs Requirements] Input to Contacts API

DAP should not be treating the current requirements draft as an
already-agreed baseline, and point-by-point subjecting further input to
discussion and group consensus. It is AT&T's position that the current
draft represents still a call for requirements collection, and that all
requirements must be accepted and incorporated as-is, with group
consensus following, based upon review e.g. for consistency and
approach, with all requirements in the document having equal
(pre-consensus) standing at this point.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 16:32:51 UTC

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