W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > May 2012

RE: System Level APIs draft proposal

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 05:36:08 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C350FECCA3E@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>
OK, let's go with that plan.

Bryan Sullivan

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 1:34 PM
Cc: Niklas Widell; Doug Turner; public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: System Level APIs draft proposal

On May 22, 2012, at 18:09 , SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> AFAICT, Webapps will not be addressing the user experience (UX) related to security/privacy options for installable Webapps, regardless of how packaged. If there are aspects then of the UX that are necessary to define at least in terms of function if not UI, e.g. permission notices and grants and how pre-arranged trust may affect that, shouldn't that be addressed in this WG as part of an app lifecycle discussion?

WebApps is addressing the installation aspects in its installable apps API (I doubt that it will mandate any UX, but it ought to provide the hooks for it). System can define lower-level things such as permissions.

> This will have an impact on the design of the APIs as you note, but I also think there are general app lifecycle / UX aspects that need to be addressed as guidelines at the least.

Yes, the last iteration of the charter reflects that. There will have to be coordination between DAP, System, and WebApps - but that was only to be expected.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 05:37:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:37 UTC