- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:40:06 +0100
- To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
- Cc: DAP <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:22 , JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: > I still believe that having a generic mechanism for getting access to > device properties is useful and better than specific APIs, one for each > aspect. But isn't that for the most part covered by the Sensors API? What parts of SysInfo are not covered by either specific APIs or the generic one — that's what I'm asking. > In essence the problem here is the same as in the other APIs you want to > discontinue: it has to be made clear that the API you are discontinuing > can also be a viable and useful approach. The only thing is that DAP has > decided to follow a different path. But does not mean that other options > are not valid. I understand that, and will draft a text that I hope will satisfy your concerns. But the case of SysInfo is different: its functionality seems to have been taken over by other documents completely, with one of those having a rather comparable design. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 10:40:42 UTC