- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:31:45 +0200
- To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
- Cc: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
On May 25, 2012, at 09:23 , JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, but the knowledge and people for security design are quite different > than the needed for API design. We can end up with a group very > heterogeneous I beg to differ, I don't think that you can design APIs properly unless you understand the security implications. >> I strongly agree with Adam that picking a focused set to begin with would >> be very helpful. > > I don't disagree but then you are opening a potentially big discussion on > priorities that can depend on different interests I know, but just because a discussion may be difficult doesn't mean we should be having it. Given the plethora of deliverables, the sooner we can have a plan the better. >> 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). > > I totally agree. But if something is not in the Charter it would be > difficult to make a submission I'm not sure what you are referring to here? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 08:32:20 UTC