- From: Doug Turner <w3c@dougt.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:38:29 -0800
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:01 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > Hi all, > > On Jan 6, 2010, at 17:29 , Robin Berjon wrote: >> I think we should eliminate option (3) because it doesn't scale (if we produce a Unicorn spec, since unicorns graze too we'll have painted us into a corner). >> >> The more I think about (2) the less I like it. It makes for a huge device object that doesn't really make much sense as a whole. >> >> So I guess the question is how much we mind polluting navigator :) Personally, I don't mind much because it's not a space in which authors normally put stuff so the risks should be low. The downside is that we don't own navigator (the HTML WG does) but I guess we can ask for their review. >> >> So I'm going to go with (4), i.e. Doug's proposal which Max already indicated support for. >> >> Any other opinions? > > You'll note that before expressing a relative preference, I wrote a few paragraphs explaining why. This isn't a vote people, your support for an option ought to be motivated (at the very least with "I support N because I agree with X")! > > -- > Robin Berjon > robineko — hired gun, higher standards > http://robineko.com/ I support (4) because I agree with DougT. so +1 ;-) DougT
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 15:39:00 UTC