Re: System Level APIs draft proposal

On May 2, 2012, at 2:33 AM, Niklas Widell wrote:

> 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.

I agree.  I think it should be left up to the UA to figure out how to express what is browser-safe and what is non-browser-safe.  We should have non-normative language that expresses that certain api need security and privacy considerations.  However, I think the WG should steer away from mandating what APIs are really 'browser-safe'.


> 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.

There is clearly a renewed effort in 'non-browser-safe' apis. When Mozilla asked to leave the DAP there wasn't B2G and there was little bandwidth for anything that was 'non-browser-safe'.  Since, we rejoined the DAP. 

> (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)

One of my complaints of the DAP was that it was a wide sweeping WG that had way too many deliverables.  I tend to think smaller WGs with tighter focus work a lot better.  Spawning off a WG to work specially on System Level APIs seems like it is a good thing.  However, I am not sure about all of the politics of something like that.

Doug

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:31:33 UTC