- From: Arribas, Laura, VF-Group <Laura.Arribas@vodafone.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:18:38 +0200
- To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Frederick, I think this is a very important point and we need to start working on this. As Dom mentioned in his e-mail [1], we have started building the policy framework on top of feature/device-capability concept, which we haven't defined yet. To your question: "If capabilities were marked in the Web IDL itself it would aid in automatically generating, using and testing capabilities - is this an approach worth considering?" I am not sure how difficult it would be to do this but I definitely think it would help a lot in the capability definition task. Kind Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0133.html ________________________________ From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com Sent: 16 June 2010 14:39 To: public-device-apis@w3.org Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com Subject: Policy - capability definition question Some time ago Daniel provided an overview of device capabilities [1] and a pointer to BONDI definitions [2]. It seems, however, that these definitions may not map directly to the DAP API definitions, especially as the DAP interfaces evolve. Taking Contacts, as an example, the BONDI definitions include: pim.contact.read Read the contacts stored in the terminal pim.contact.write Writes contacts to be stored in the terminal However our current contacts editors draft [3] has find, create, clone, save, remove as methods, as well as more granular access control opportunities on the ContactProperties interface. It seems that this kind of issue might occur with a number of specifications. In this case it seems we have capabilities for creation, deletion, and update as well as find (and some possible granularity on find). If capabilities were marked in the Web IDL itself it would aid in automatically generating, using and testing capabilities - is this an approach worth considering? It appears we will need API specific definitions of capabilities. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Feb/0142.html [2] http://bondi.omtp.org/1.1/apis/devcaps.html [3] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/
Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 15:19:11 UTC