- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 21:55:07 +0200
- To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
- Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org
Hi Jose, On May 24, 2012, at 19:53 , JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: > * Security Model > * Execution Model > * Raw Socket API > * DNS Resolution API >> I don't see the use case > * USB API > >>> In general I don't understand this prioritization. Telephony, Contacts and SMS APIs are the first priorities. Mobile should be our first target. Prioritising Security and Execution Models makes a lot of sense (in fact, that part is already in the charter) because they are instrumental in deciding the context to which the APIs with be attuned. I strongly agree with Adam that picking a focused set to begin with would be very helpful. But stating things like "mobile should be our first target" is not really helpful. I have no doubt that mobile is the first target for Telefonica, and no doubt others. But in devising this charter there was strong interest and very good input from multiple communities including mobile but also netbooks, TV, automotive, cameras, and many more. I'm not saying that Telephony for instance isn't important, but for most of those cases it is very close to the bottom of the priority pile. That's part of the problem we face — as the Web breaks silos we also have to face up to breadth of usage. Trying to prioritise per constituency may not lead to easy consensus. Another way to prioritise can be by resources. Any company that wants to prioritise a given API should commit to editing it; and since talk is cheap such commitments could be required to come with a properly formatted W3C specification submission (or close enough to it — it's not as if the tools didn't make that easy). WDYT? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 19:55:33 UTC