Re: Proposed Set of Needs/Preferences for v1

No - my meaning is that if the scope is as I understand you to be arguing for then the user context parts of the spec have no value as there"s no way to do anything useful that is not in existing practice without a mechanism to read prefs in, which we have justifiably set as out of scope for v1 . I'm not arguing that it should be in scope (I really don't think it should) - I *am* arguing we need to do *something* for interoperability otherwise I don't know why we are here.

Apols for typos - I can't read this iPad text properly as I need larger fonts ;-) :-) honestly

Andy

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2013, at 05:55, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Andy Heath <AndyHeath@axelrod.plus.com> wrote:
> 
>> It seems to me that we have a fundamental disagreement on whether we have some semantic set of preferences built in or whether its a general model that can express any (keyed) preferences defined externally and uniquely for each device vendor.
>> 
>> I have two problems with the second approach
>> 
>> 1. How do we get an individual's set of preferences into the device? We said there would be no mechanism for that in v1
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly, this validates my previous point.
> 
> There is no current way to "get an individual's set of [external, wishlist] preferences into the device" and if there were, it would be different on each system, and therefore outside the scope of the specification. This is why in version 1.0 we should use preferences that already exist on operating systems, browsers, and assistive technology, and specify the way that web applications can access them.
> 
>> 2. How do we achieve the generality of preferences (the interoperability) that individuals need and web authors need to know about?
> 
> In my opinion, we start with the most common implementable ones for 1.0 and expand outward as needed.
> 
> James
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 21:12:37 UTC