- From: Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:36:25 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTilZhbiEFdRRctzWFF_mLErXTISH2_MoizKoC-uH@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote: > Le mardi 01 juin 2010 à 18:04 +0100, Rich Tibbett a écrit : > > Thanks for pinging me. I updated the spec immediately following the > > DAP F2F for ACTION-125 although I see that a number of items may still > > open to discussion. These are: > > > > - Filter matching and whether to move to regex-based syntax for > > partial matching. The spec currently says that matching is lazy (match > > any and all instances of the provided string). > > Sounds good to me; I would probably even go further, and leave the > matching algorithm entirely user-agent dependent, making the search > terms more of a hint than anything else. Even partial matching can be > ill-adapted in some cases; should "hazael" match "Hazaël" for instance? > > (this relates to Robin's ACTION-122 BTW) > On the premise of using a lazy matching mechanism I would say that "hazael" should match "Hazaël" in the resulting contacts picker. It may be good to define the term 'lazy matching' further in the spec (case-insensitive matching is already included). It would be good to discuss ACTION-122 further and see if any changes are proposed to the spec. > > I have also created an interpretation of a conformant Contacts Picker > > UI (attached to this email and based on the find(..) example included > > in the current Contacts API spec). This completes ACTION-124 (but > > feedback to tweak the demo UI is welcome). This is, of course, only > > one interpretation of Contacts-based interaction that the > > specification enables. I could place this in the current Contacts API > > draft (to flesh out the non-normative examples provided) but perhaps > > this would be best placed in a best practices document for > > implementors. WDYT? Any plans on producing a best practices document > > as discussed at the DAP F2F in Prague? I ask because I'd like to push > > the Contact API 'Design Considerations' in there also. > > Rather than putting it as a separate document (esp. one called "best > practices" - that would be hard to justify given that there hasn't been > much practice in implementing this API yet :), I would suggest moving > the Design Considerations, accompanied with the new screenshots, into a > non-normative Appendix. We can evaluate whether it should go away from > the document at a later stage in the Rec track, I think. > > Right. I'll create a non-normative Appendix to house this stuff as it is useful but not essential information. - Richard
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 08:44:11 UTC