W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Policy framework (was: Rechartering Device APIs & Policy Working Group)

From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:54:02 -0800
Message-ID: <526CC663888541149CFFE8F943622C1C@ITServices.sbc.com>
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "public-device-apis" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Well the "information" that may change W3C's mind will be the broad market
support for user-friendly applications based upon a designated trust model
(in which the app is given a level of trust based upon testing and various
other criteria). There is definitely a "large enough body" preparing to
enter the market with a variety of implementations of this model for
policy-based trust. The question is, whether no matter how clear a statement
the market makes, will W3C care to listen.

From: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:45 AM
To: "Bryan Sullivan" <blsaws@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>; "public-device-apis"
Subject: Policy framework (was: Rechartering Device APIs & Policy Working

> Hi,
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 17:04 , Bryan Sullivan wrote:
>> - A policy framework that would allow using the defined APIs into a
>> different security environment than the default browser context
> Where the policy framework is concerned, I first have to point out that
> the group has already resolved not to work on it. Reopening that
> discussion is going to require information that was not available to us at
> that time.
> But much more importantly, I've been talking to a lot of people about this
> over the past few months, and 100% of the support I have heard for this
> has come from the mobile industry. Conversely, 100% of the other
> stakeholders were against it.
> To me this indicates that this is not a technology that, at this point, is
> justified in being standardised in a consortium that spans all the
> industries that the Web covers. Not all technologies need to be universal.
> It would be weird to see W3C specifying radio protocols for 5G
> communication. There is nothing wrong about vertical requirements being
> standardised in vertical organisations.
> It's not a numbers game, it doesn't matter how big this or that industry
> is. It doesn't matter how many implementers there are if they're all in
> the same industry  I can find quite a few 3G chipset implementers, but
> that wouldn't make it a good idea for DAP to write standards for that.
> It's about working everywhere. DAP is part of the Ubiquitous Web
> Activity  that should signal something.
> So unless we see a large enough body of support for this coming from
> outside the mobile industry, I really don't see how this could stay on
> charter. Maybe it'll be back in a future group, when more experimentation
> has been conducted, when there are novel ideas about how to approach the
> issue that have been shown to make sense in a broader context. But that's
> hardly the case now.
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 09:15:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:25 UTC