- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:12:49 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi, On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:42 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > In the tentative roadmap for the DAP specs [1], I put a first public > working draft of the contacts API [2] for December 2009. Knowing that > there will be a publication moratorium with the end of the year where > last publication requests must be made by December 18 [3], I’m wondering > if that’s a reasonable guess. Now that Richard has made an updated draft available, I believe that we could stick to the following schedule: - People are to review the specification by Wednesday. It's a rather short document. - Based on that feedback there's a one-week turn around to make edits (with Richard being helped by other editors, I know I'll be having some time). - At the call after next we do a go-no-go on the FPWD. I'll note that decisions to publish are technical decisions: asking not to publish requires substantiation, not just feeling that it's too early. > The real question is probably what are our criteria for deciding to > publish the API as FPWD; my understanding is that we want to be > reasonably feature-complete so that the Patent Policy call for > exclusions covers most of what the spec will become. I think that we should get two things right for FPWD: 1) It needs to be feature-complete (even if poorly defined) enough to make us safer in the patent exclusion area; 2) It should have points of integration into browsers well-defined (i.e. the security mechanism and API entry points need to be reasonable enough to start a discussion). Other aspects such as which fields are present or the exact look of search queries are secondary: they can be handled in other iterations. > There are three other open action items and two open issues on the > Geolocation API: > http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/products/5 ; it would be good if their > owners (Bryan, Robin, Arve) would let us know if they consider them > critical before FPWD. Essentially, I think that only ACTION-50 (which seems to have been done, I need to review) is on the critical path. -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 17:13:19 UTC