W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

[push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:58:38 -0400
Message-ID: <5063505E.6080901@nokia.com>
To: "ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3c.org" <public-webapps@w3c.org>
On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> We've previously called for any comments to the current Push API draft [1], and would like to promote it to FPWD before TPAC. We haven't received any substantive comments as far as I know, which tells me that it could be in good shape for publication. With the addition of Telefonica (Eduardo) as co-editor and simplification / better alignment with proposals for B2G / Firefox OS, I believe we are in shape for FPWD now. So if I could request a CFC for publication as FPWD before Oct 15, that would be our preference.
> Alternatively we can put this on the agenda for TPAC and discuss/promote it then as possible. But in the absence of substantive comments (which tells me we have addressed most of the comments on the first ED), I think we should be ready for FPWD.
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html

The requirements for FPWD are relatively loose but because the 
publication of a FPWD starts a Call for (IP) Exclusions, it is helpful 
for some reviewers if the breath of the spec is mostly complete, 
although the depth can certainly be lacking.

What is your view on the set of features/scope? Is the ED covering most 
of the scope? If there are any high priority features missing, what are 

Based on a very quick scan, I noticed:

* The Privacy and Security section is empty and I think it would be 
helpful if some additional informational was added before FPWD.

* The Specific Service Bindings section is empty. It seems like this 
should have some information before FPWD, especially if it is going to 
be a normative section. (Are some of these "bindings" specified outside 
the W3C?)

* Push Framework - it appears this section should be marked as 
non-normative. I think it would be helpful if some type of flow diagram 
was included as well as example application code to use the API 
(although this non-normative info is not necessarily a blocker for FPWD).

* serverProtocols - what are the expectations for the "valid" set of 
values; where are they specified?

Some editorial comments ...

* Define "Web Intent Push Service provider", "Push server" and "webapp" 
or add a link to the definitions.

* Update the references that are out of date (e.g. HTML5).

* Not clear what onopen event is since it isn't part of the PushService API

-Thanks, Art
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 18:59:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:38 UTC