- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:17:36 +0100
- To: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
- Cc: <dom@w3.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Nov 30, 2009, at 13:16 , <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > There are a number of items that would benefit from mailing list > discussion before FPWD. I will push these items to the mailing list > today. Perhaps we can pick up this discussion (i.e. FPWD roadmaps) on > our regular conf. call on Wednesday? That would be great, but for each of these items please indicate why it ought to delay FPWD. It is unavoidable that there will be issues with the draft — if there weren't we'd release as LC :) I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the default action when a draft is sufficiently banged into shape is to release it. As I said, I can think of two primary issues: feature-completeness (from a patent standpoint) and browser integration at a sufficient level that we can have a useful discussion with implementers about the general shape of the API. Everything else I can think of is secondary and can be triaged to the next-WD pile. I might be missing something of course, so in the items you post it'd be great if you could triage them between "critical path" and "next WD", and if on the critical path explain why. The same applies to anyone raising issues. -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 17:18:13 UTC