- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:13:01 +0200
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, public-device-apis@w3.org
On Jul 7, 2010, at 15:58 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Le mercredi 07 juillet 2010 à 15:40 +0200, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com a > écrit : >> First, WARP is very simple dealing with network access in aggregate, >> does not have the granularity of access control as does XACML. > > At it stands, indeed, but it could be extended for more granular access. It could indeed be, though the intent (at least for v1) was to keep it within reasonable limits so that it stays easy to write (and to implement without bugs). > But I think comparing the current framework with WARP is like comparing > apples and oranges (or Apple and Orange, for that matter): WARP is > addressing self-declaration from content authors, when the proposed > policy framework is addressing regulation of access to APIs from > (mostly) operators, handsets manufacturers and possibly third-party > services. > > Thus my point was to first look at what are the limitations that content > authors would like to see lifted from the Web APIs environment (which is > what WARP roughly addresses today), before looking at how to have > operators and others exchange policies on whether to allow for these > restrictions to be lifted (which is what the policy framework > addresses). Agreed, and WARP is only part of that equation in widgets, the other parts are catered to by the <feature> element which is part of core widgets and declares that a specific, normally limited, feature is desired. -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 14:13:31 UTC