W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > September 2010

Action Points

From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 12:31:04 +0200
To: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <376A32D52DCEC845B630D7183D2271C202C8B04F@ESESSCMS0355.eemea.ericsson.se>
Dear all,
Accept my regrets for next telecon. Here is the status of my action points:

ACTION-280 - I have sent suggestion to Wonsuk. If he accepts, then close action

ACTION-289 - to remove Section 5 Conformance Requirements,DONE!

ACTION-298 - Contact WebIDL

Below is the response regarding REST bindings for WebIDL, from Robin and Barstow:

I am unsure that this is a topic that the HCG can do much about, though naturally I'd be happy to discuss it here. The DAP WG has been looking into this issue in a low-intensity fashion. The use cases there are similar to those that I believe MAWG has - namely to define a JS API and have Just WorkT as an over-the-wire protocol.

WebIDL is essentially a mix of a schema language and a protocol definition language (i.e. it does both attributes and operations); something that it inherits from its OMG IDL ancestry (note however that no one wants to go full-circle and build a monster comparable to CORBA). It should therefore be possible to define a REST+JSON binding for it (or a defined subset of it). The schema side of it is straightforward enough, it shouldn't be too hard to generate a JSON Schema from WebIDL (I've actually started down that path). Defining the interactions is a little bit trickier though.

Since this work item is not high on anyone's priority list, and since I've so far pretty much been the only person occasionally staffed to it, it's not moving fast. But if there's interest (and commitment to help) then it could move faster. I'd certainly be happy to help.

Robin Berjon

FYI - WebApps agreed the public-script-coord list should be used for Web IDL technical discussions:


Although I am delighted Cam will soon return to editing the Web IDL spec, he will not attend the upcoming TPAC meeting, thus that spec will not be on the agenda of WebApps' f2f meeting that week.

-Art Barstow

ACTION-300 - Response from GeoLocation, concerning relaxing the accuracy attrib:

The need to keep the accuracy attribute mandatory is derived from our use cases and requirements.
See req. 6.2.2 here: http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/#requirements_section
Web applications using the Geolocation API generally need to know the accuracy of the location data provided.

We can certainly bring this up for discussion in the working group as part of the planned "Level 2" changes to the API, but I would expect some resistance to the proposal.

Best regards,
Lars Erik Bolstad
Co-Chair W3C Geolocation WG


ACTION-305 - DONE, waiting response.

ACTION-316 - See reply to ACTION 298 - Suggest to close this ACTION.

Best regards
Received on Sunday, 26 September 2010 12:17:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:43 UTC