- From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:50:14 -0500
- To: ext Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
>> Is there a requirement to allow local access to contacts, for >> example, even when disconnected from the network? How would this >> work in this model, or is disconnected operation not a requirement? >> It seems a mobile device should still operate as much as possible >> when disconnected. > > That's entirely orthogonal. Either the web server is local, or > (perhaps more likely) it is emulated by the user agent. You never go > to the network, whether connected or not. I thought the proposal was to go to the network for authorization, in which case it is not orthogonal. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:43 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: > On Jan 13, 2010, at 15:35 , Frederick Hirsch wrote: >> Is there a requirement to allow local access to contacts, for >> example, even when disconnected from the network? How would this >> work in this model, or is disconnected operation not a requirement? >> It seems a mobile device should still operate as much as possible >> when disconnected. > > That's entirely orthogonal. Either the web server is local, or > (perhaps more likely) it is emulated by the user agent. You never go > to the network, whether connected or not. > >> How would this all relate to the current BONDI and Nokia proposals >> and the work that has been done with those? It seems to progress >> this new idea further we need a more concrete proposal, another >> more detailed submission. Is this something Google is prepared to >> submit, Mark, or Robin are you offering to do that? > > I am simply offering to develop a sufficiently complex example that > we can make an informed decision. Of course any other input is > welcome. > > It is a largely different approach from those that were submitted, > and I do have timeliness concerns. That being said before we start > worrying about that I really want to get more concrete with it: we > might find out that it makes specifying a number of our APIs > actually simpler (yet again, it might not). > >> I think exploring a given use case using the current submissions as >> well as this virtual web service approach is warranted, walking >> through the scenarios and issues, especially since we'd like to >> identify issues related to requirements, security, usability, >> interop etc as early as possible. > > That's why I suggested investigating what doing this with Geo would > look like: it's a well-known API, with well-known examples and use > cases, it's already done, and it has the right type of problems to > be interesting. > >> By the way, I assume the phrase "web services" is not meant to >> infer WS* SOAP Web Services in this thread... > > Over my dead body :) > > -- > Robin Berjon > robineko — hired gun, higher standards > http://robineko.com/ > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 14:51:36 UTC