RE: ISSUE-5: Application Configuration API

As noted on the call today, we need to provide a documented rationale why we are not addressing the application settings functionality that were included in the charter as "Application Configuration API". I am OK with not addressing an Application Configuration API given that we clarify that the existing work on localStorage in HTML5 and referenced by the Widgets specs meets the intent of the Application Configuration API. But we should at least make that note in some document we produce, so readers are not confused as to why we have remained silent on something that was part of our original charter. We could produce either a W3C Note or a make a scope section note in an umbrella Requirements document to this effect. Given that the publication of a Requirements document is itself an open question, we should at least do this via a W3C Note (e.g. the "Primer" mentioned by Kangchan). Since such a document will be important anyway IMO for the developers/deployers of the overall set of API and Policy specifications that DAP produces.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Arve Bersvendsen
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 3:13 AM
Subject: ISSUE-5: Application Configuration API

I'd like to propose that we drop the "Application configuration API"  
deliverable from this group's list of deliverables.

1. Application preferences are already covered by the Widgets 1.0 P&C and  
"Widgets 1.0: The widget Interface"
2. Data persistence APIs are also covered by the (HTML5) WebStorage spec  
(and for more complex cases, WebDatabase)

Arve Bersvendsen

Opera Software ASA,

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 15:12:28 UTC