- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:20:13 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Hari Kumar G <harig@opera.com>, "frederick.hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Le mardi 03 août 2010 à 10:05 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit : > I'm of the preference that each API spec should define its own feature > string. I personally don't have a very strong preference with that; the difficulty is that such an approach prevents from defining features strings for APIs that are already baked, or that have been developed outside of W3C, or for which the editors don't care about Widget features. > Otherwise, the DAP features spec will never reach REC. I don't see why this would be so; we would publish a first subset with specs that are sufficiently advanced, and publish a next version when more APIs are needed, etc. > Having > the DAP feature doc define the rules for constructing the URIs is very > useful, however. And might be the only thing needed, I agree. I guess the exact scope of that work is still up in the air, and will depend on the feedback from various spec editors, implementors, etc. Dom
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2010 08:20:25 UTC