- From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:05:37 +0100
- To: Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>, María Ángeles Oteo <maoteo@novanotio.es>
- CC: W3C DAP <public-device-apis@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C8F835F1.625D%blsaws@gmail.com>
Rich, If we are to take the approach that anything which can be done by a web service should be out of scope for DAP, we would have little to do. This would include (things that can be done via a web service): * pim (contacts, calendar, tasks) * messaging * gallery Essentially anything that is not clearly stored on the local device or information that only the device knows (e.g. Status) could be supported by a web service. To be sure, I do not recommend that we go that far. So for message sending, the ability to use the locally-available content and service invocation capabilities related to specific services such as messaging, are still important to define as APIs even if we do have already have useful/usable methods such as URI schemes and web services. Bryan | AT&T On 11/3/10 8:34 AM, "Rich Tibbett" <rich.tibbett@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/11/2 María Ángeles Oteo <maoteo@novanotio.es> > >> Formerly, we decided to split messaging API in 3 parts: >> >> A) Sending and Subscription >> B) Reading messages from the device memory >> C) Managing messages in device memory (e.g. folder management) >> >> Based on the comments about security and the need to provide multipart >> handling capability for reception we suggest to change the structure of the >> split: >> >> A) Sending: Simple API with no MIME multipart support. >> B) Subscribing and reading: We need to add MIME multipart support for >> this one and filters (hopefully the same) for both subscription and message >> retrieval: subscribe only to SMSs coming from a particular number or >> retrieve from the device memory only the messages that match that filter. >> C) Message management. >> > > Assuming we are creating an API to live for 100 years, it's not clear why we > would want to be explicitly concrete in to the web platform today's > technologies such as SMS, MMS and Email when we could provide a much nicer > abstract model to achieve the same effect. > > I am, personally, happy using existing and future web services to send and > receive messages via SMS, MMS and Email. In addition I can use sms:, mmsto: > and mailto: URLs to launch my native client when required. Sending messages > seems sorted. > > For me, a suitable abstraction here would be to focus only on a generic Push > Notification API for the web - to allow incoming messages from a multitude of > sources, including SMS, MMS and Email. The receiving/listening functionality > could be abstracted to allow for more broad push notifications to occur within > the browser. > > WDYT? > > - Rich > >
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 09:06:15 UTC