RE: Contacts API

 On March 01, 2013 3:50 AM, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA  wrote:
>Hi Suresh, Wonsuk, et al.
>
>On 28 feb 2013 at 06:52:21, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
>> Hi Wonsuk,
>>
>> .....
>> ....
>>
>> From: Wonsuk Lee [mailto:wonsuk73@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,
>February
>> 27, 2013 11:25 PM To: Suresh Chitturi Cc: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA;
>> wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; Adam Barth; public-sysapps@w3.org Subject:
>Re:
>> Contacts API
>>
>> Hi. Suresh and all.
>> Concerning to co-ordination issues on overlap areas btw DAP and
>> SysApps WG, I sent a feedback to DAP WG like [1]. So far I didn't get
>> any comment, so I would like to bring Contacts API spec to FPWD.
>> But before that, I would like to get feedback for below comments in
>> [1] from the groups (esp. editors of this spec). What do you think?
>>
>> Suresh>> Not being a member of Sys Apps group, I would let the editors
>> comment first, but generally there is a strong interest/support on the
>> DAP side for harmonization of the contact formats and semantics. The
>> current contact format in DAP (independent of intents or non-intents
>> approach) is the outcome of many prior discussions and viewed to be
>> the best way forward without creating a dependency on a specific
>> underlying formats but instead taking a "minimum subset' approach that
>> can be implemented on top of underlying implementations (of course with
>an extensible mechanism).
>> Contact formats in general is a moving target and therefore basing the
>> APIs on a single format might be risky path!
>>
>
>I agree we should aim at aligning the contact's data model between DAP and
>SysApps specs. Actually the differences are not that big, so it should not be a
>problem. 

Sounds great!

>I propose the editors collaborate to reach this alignment. In any case
>the changes are mainly about naming or grouping of attributes, so IMO
>nothing so meaningful that should prevent the SysApps Contacts API draft to
>go to FPWD.
>

Our main concern is that FPWD is an important milestone so getting the alignment done prior would signal a good message to the community that we are indeed aligning between the two groups.  And maybe even calling this out in the draft on the approach and alignment would help.

Regards,
Suresh

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 21:06:30 UTC