Re: Status of rest proposals (Messaging, Telephony and Raw Sockets)

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> > About email, then IM+group chat: I can draft specs which build upon the
>> > structures defined in the SMS+MMS spec, but there would be separate
>> > proposals for email, IM, and group chat, respectively. I am on the
>> > opinion
>> > that drafting at least email and P2P IM would be beneficial even if we
>> > decide on the F2F to focus only on SMS+MMS.
>> > Group chat is a bit more complex, and the need is small. I expect to
>> > finish these specs by the F2F.
>>
>> For email, I would like to have use cases for checking the value of this
>> API.
>
> I have a similar request. I would like to understand what type of
> applications people are hoping to build with the API.
>
> I.e. if the target is to build a full email application, or something else.
>

More like variants for full email applications.
For intended features, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Mar/0126.html

For what the spec proposed, see the old Intel proposal (now input doc):
http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging/input_docs/Messaging_Intel.html#emailservice
http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging/input_docs/Messaging_Intel.html#emailmessage

This spec has provisions to handle email accounts, but I did not
specify it yet, on purpose: I believe it could and should be done
together with other account handling, aligned with a single sign on
solution, or at least a common credentials storage interface.

The basic idea about email has been that whatever the email
implementation would be on a device (JS or native), there could be
alternative apps for handling email - for the same business reason as
for having Telephony / SMS/ MMS API's for writing alternative
dialers/mobile messaging apps.

Let's see if we'll have enough time to discuss about this on the face
to face: SMS and MMS have the focus now, but email definitely also
belongs to "Messaging" domain (in fact, MMS uses SMTP based transport
on the NN4 interface), as well as IM.

If we decide to permanently constrain the content of the Messaging API
to SMS+MMS only, without further options to extend to support IM and
email, then IMO we should change the name of the SMS+MMS spec to
"Mobile Messaging" or similar.

Best regards,
Zoltan

Received on Saturday, 23 March 2013 08:52:44 UTC