RE: [Messaging API based on webinos]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mounir@lamouri.fr] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 7:55 AM
To: public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Messaging API based on webinos]

> On 03/01/13 15:42, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> > I agree with Jose. We have gone down this path a couple of times already
> > (in BONDI and WAC, and DAP) and it was found that trying to have "one
> > messaging API to rule them all" is tempting but ultimately too
> > functionally warping to the needs of the individual messaging systems.
> > Attachments and mailbox/folder management are examples of significantly
> > divergent (or contextually irrelevant) functions.

> As I already said in this mailing list, I am strongly against a
> Messaging API that includes email and IM too. I think we should stay on
> the SMS/MMS level.

> I am generally against having an API for email or IM in the Web and I
> think the Raw Socket API + JS libraries should be enough but even if we
> do not agree with that, I think merging multiple different technologies
> in the same specification makes things harder to do because each
> technology have its own specificities. Even trying to merge SMS and MMS
> in the same specification isn't trivial.

In contrast I think that in the short term there is strong value in a distinct API for email, kept to a reasonable balance of functionality and simplicity, as email services are commonly system-level managed (e.g. through account settings) and benefit from shared use of efficient message notification systems (e.g. OMA Push, GCM, APNS, MPNS, ...) and system-level message retrieval. 

In the longer term, a combined service API which includes SMS, MMS, email, IM, group chat, etc could be based upon the OMA Converged Packet Messaging (CPM) enabler specification, which is the basis of the Rich Communication Suite (RCS) services that are beginning to be rolled out across the world, as LTE networks and the necessary infrastructure for them (IMS) is deployed. I would welcome the opportunity to start a dialog in that direction, albeit a bit longer term ("Phase 2+"?).

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan

Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 16:17:15 UTC