W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Shelving Intents-based specs

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:41:11 +0000
To: <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <gbillock@google.com>, <bs3131@att.com>, <jsoref@blackberry.com>, <robin@w3.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1CB2E0B458B211478C85E11A404A2B2701AA35EE@008-AM1MPN1-033.mgdnok.nokia.com>
thanks for catching the (freudian?) slip

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On May 15, 2013, at 3:52 AM, ext Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:

Just a small editorial note. The name of the Task Force is “Web Intents Task Force”.


From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
Sent: den 14 maj 2013 18:53
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com<mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; jsoref@blackberry.com<mailto:jsoref@blackberry.com>; Robin Berjon; public-device-apis@w3.org<mailto:public-device-apis@w3.org> public-device-apis@w3.org<mailto:public-device-apis@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Shelving Intents-based specs

Looks good to me. Shall I make this change and publish it, or is that something you need to do?

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com<mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>> wrote:

I think we can handle the status of the Web Intents neatly by publishing as a WG WG Note ( as Art suggested in his response to the CfC).

In conjunction with publishing as a W3C WG Note, I would suggest adding the following text as part of the revision of the status section of the document:

"This document was produced by the Web Activities Task Force, a joint activity of the Device APIs Working Group (linked) and the Web Applications Working Group (linked). Members of these working groups have agreed  not to progress the Web Intents specification further as a Recommendation track document, electing to publish it as an informative Working Group Note. The Working Groups have not performed interop testing on the material in this document. Implementers are cautioned that this material is subject to change and that an alternative design may be pursued in the future."

This can be followed by a summary of changes since the last Working Draft publication (and redline)

I suggest we do this assuming there is support and no objection to this approach - comments are welcome ( CfC closes this Friday 17 May, so responses to CfC on list re publishing Web Intents as WG Note would be useful).

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Apr 26, 2013, at 7:06 PM, ext Greg Billock wrote:

> I have a TODO to mark the web intents spec as... what should I do? I'm not sure the correct wording. The idea is "we hope this is useful for further consideration, so we aren't deleting it, but it's not intended to be implemented as is."
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com<mailto:bs3131@att.com>> wrote:
> How difficult is it to bring them back to active development if we get some traction e.g. on intents or activities? Can we continue to develop them as notes? I would rather not move them to notes too fast. As noted in the meeting I think the issues with intents and activities UI need more investigation before we pull the plug.
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
> ------ Original message------
> From: Josh Soref
> Date: Fri, 4/26/2013 2:29 PM
> To: Robin Berjon;DAP;
> Subject:Re: Shelving Intents-based specs
> Sadly, I support shelving at this time, until such a time as an Intents or similar mechanism appears.
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> From: Robin Berjon
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:57 PM
> To: DAP
> Subject: Shelving Intents-based specs
> Hi all,
> I'd like to suggest that we shelve all the specs we have out there that
> depend on Intents (e.g. Pick Contacts), including parking as Note. The
> reason I ask is that I'm getting reports of people being confused by
> this (notably, it would seem, in SysApps) and while Intents are
> relatively stalled there is no hope of it progressing anyway, so we
> might as well make that clear to people.
> Thanks!
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 12:42:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:54 UTC