- From: Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis@intel.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 01:16:23 +0300
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>, "Isberg, Anders" <Anders.Isberg@sonymobile.com>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > If anything, the WG undoubtedly wants some degree of API interoperability. It's already been demonstrated that runtimes can have their own security models and certification-processes, but still make use of a shared pool of Web Platform APIs (e.g., Tizen, Cordoba, Firefox OS all use different security models and rely on different certification infrastructure, but all can potentially use the common W3C's Web Platform APIs. so long as those APIs are supported by the underlying engine). Not having a common security model has not stopped these ecosystems from sprouting up. Exactly. I see the big value in the standardized system API's, in standardized app lifecycle, and permissions, and I don't think the different signing schemes are show-stoppers. If I am a SW house, I don't care that much about packaging / signing for different stores as much as I care about my source tree consistence, and development/maintenance/marketing costs. Then, it may be that some of the standardized API's in SysApps reach only hundreds of developers instead of thousands (like Telephony), if those hundred are relevant from business point of view (like operators). These niche things are still a homework to be done for providing a fully synergistic platform with the rest of the apps, proving that it is mature enough for solving the complex use cases modern platforms are expected to do. Best regards, Zoltan
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 22:16:49 UTC