- From: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:33:15 +0200
- To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
I would prefer to have browser-safe and non-browser-safe APIs in one WG. Potentially two specs (or two different sections in spec or something) per API depending on security solution, but I think the work will only end up in confusion with two Wgs doing very similar things. The reason for watered-down browser safe APIs in DAP was that nobody seemed to want to implement the non-browser-safe ones at one point in time, if implementors perception of this has changed I thing we should recharter DAP accordingly. (n.b. There are also a couple of APIs in the proposal that does not have corresponding DAP apis, I see no reason why these couldn't be added to DAP charter, actually added back for a couple of them) Best Regards Niklas Widell Ericsson AB On 2012-04-30 19:43, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote: >There is overlap on a number of items because while DAP addresses those >items they don't enable everything a native could do (C, etc, with direct >OS API access). So the topic being in scope in the System Level API WG >does not mean DAP doesn't cover some of the functionality. It means DAP >likely doesn't cover all of it. If DAP does cover all of it, the new WG >won't have to. The WGs likely would coordinate that. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tran, Dzung D [mailto:dzung.d.tran@intel.com] >>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:07 AM >>To: Robin Berjon; public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org >>Subject: RE: System Level APIs draft proposal >> >>Robin, >> >>We had a System Info API and that was abandoned, so my question is what >>would >>be our approach going forward to ensure that all the efforts do not get >>abandoned? Also, in this draft proposal, you mentioned about Sensor API, >>but we >>have a draft of Sensor API now. Would this Sensor API spec be rolled >>into the >>System Level APIs? >> >>Thanks >>Tran >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] >>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 8:28 AM >>To: public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org >>Subject: System Level APIs draft proposal >> >>Hi all, >> >>during our last face to face meeting it emerged that there was interest >>in there >>being another working group that would work on System Level APIs, of the >>kind >>that would be too dangerous to include in a browser but that would be >>useful if >>you wanted to build a Web-based OS, be it through "traditional" >>applications or >>with some form of browser extension system. >> >>I looked around the existing landscape and had a variety of chats with >>people >>who expressed interest in the topic, and put together a draft charter. >> >>Please note that this draft is just my personal input, it does not >>represent the >>consensus of anyone other than myself, is not endorsed by whoever, etc. >> >> http://darobin.github.com/system-level-apis-charter/ >> >>Your feedback is welcome! >> >>-- >>Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 09:34:16 UTC