RE: [Powerbox] New draft based on further collaboration and prototyping

Hi Robin and Tyler,

Another important point that we discussed before when powerbox first
came up was to ensure that we can cover-off some of the basic abuse
cases (as outlined here:
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy-reqs/#abuse-cases ).

Would it be possible to show how powerbox can handle those?

Thanks,


David.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
Sent: 01 June 2010 16:07
To: Tyler Close
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Powerbox] New draft based on further collaboration and
prototyping

Hi Tyler,

On May 27, 2010, at 00:41 , Tyler Close wrote:
> With the help of Sony Ericsson and Mozilla Labs, we have updated the
> Powerbox proposal to address a wider array of use-cases and
> implementation environments. This new draft reflects feedback we
> received on the initial proposal, discussions with potential
> implementers and application developers and prototyping work on Chrome
> and Android.

Thanks a lot for this update, it is most interesting. Reading through it
I find that most of my comments are of a rather editorial nature, and as
such I will get back to them later. Most importantly I find that this
draft is much clearer and presents a better defined approach to the
problem.

> The current version of the Powerbox spec is ready for wider
> prototyping work and we look forward to collaboration and feedback
> from this WG. We would like to see the Powerbox become a W3C
> Recommendation from this WG.

I agree that this would be a good path to follow. The first step is to
give it a home in CVS. I believe that you already have an account on
dev.w3, so the simplest thing is probably that you add a "powerbox"
directory to http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ and place it there. The next
step would be to agree on what makes the draft "good enough" for a First
Public WD. Apart from general consideration about quality and pubrules
which you already know and which I'm not worried about, a general rule
of thumb which we use in this WG is that ideally a FPWD ought to be
roughly and to the best of one's guesses feature-complete (though of
course it doesn't need to be perfect :) The reason for this is that it
provides somewhat better protection against IP issues for everyone. If
you think we're roughly there, then we can issue a call for consensus to
publish the document. We'll deal with the delicious vagaries of
Rec-track life afterwards.

Process question for Dom: do editors listed on a draft have to be
formally members of the WG? The companies listed already are, so my
understanding is that we're covered IP-wise.

To make sure that everything is in the clear, at the last F2F the group
agreed on what we call informally "the Prague Doctrine"[0], which is
essentially that we didn't want to pre-emptively decide between
tradition/JS/host object and REST/Powerbox implementations. This means
that we endeavour to produce APIs that can be bound to both views, but
that WG doesn't wish to dedicate a lot of bandwidth to the wiring of
those bindings (since this essentially means not spending a lot of
telecon time on them, I doubt it will prove to be an issue though). As
part of this decision I've offered to create a REST/JSON binding for
WebIDL so that the mapping would be consistent. To date this has
essentially been about me scribbling stuff down and tossing it into the
trashcan but I might have a new take - either way suggestions welcome!

Note that if other editors need access to CVS, they should email Dom
offlist with their SSH pubkey (and CC me).

Thanks a lot!

[0]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Mar/att-0154/
minutes-2010-03-16.html#item04

--
Robin Berjon
  robineko - hired gun, higher standards
  http://robineko.com/

Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 15:56:04 UTC