- From: Sangwhan Moon <sangwhan@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:44:37 +0900
- To: Futomi Hatano <futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp>
- Cc: WOOK HYUN <whyun@etri.re.kr>, Masayuki IHARA <ihara.masayuki@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "<public-websignage@w3.org>" <public-websignage@w3.org>
> > While we aren't making a normative document here (although I seriously wish > > we could) making the transport method completely open ended just makes life > > complicated for implementors. > > > > What do you mean "a normative document"? > Legally, BGs can make only group notes. Do you mean this? > If we find lack of APIs, we can make API drafts unofficially. > Then we can propose them to WGs. I was noting that since we are only working on a group note, being very open ended and ambiguous is probably acceptable but not ideal. Having everything too open ended will end up in a group note that neither a implementor or a content developer can actually refer to, as it's just a collection of ideas and use cases with no specifics. I honestly don't think that there is much of a point in publishing a document that can't be used as a reference from either side - which is what I was trying to point out. Sangwhan
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 00:45:08 UTC