- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:34:12 +0200
- To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
On May 4, 2012, at 19:26 , Mounir Lamouri wrote: > I like the idea because that creates a WG that is going to own APIs that > are related to system features. However, I don't think we should insist > too much on the fact that this group should contain only APIs that do > not adhere with browser security model. I don't think this is a good > idea to put that postulate that will put to much limitations on the APIs > and implementations. This has been a common comment. I've changed the charter to indicate that the group is not required to produce browser-safe APIs, but I've dropped any wording that prevents it from doing so. Indeed, you never know, if an API happens to work in both cases then there is no reason that it should be artificially transferred to another group. There's a large batch of changes that I'm in the process of making, and right after that I plan on sending the draft to W3C management so that they can then put it in front of the AC. Thanks a lot for all your comments! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:35:02 UTC