- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:41:58 +0000
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: Konstantinov Sergey <twirl@yandex-team.ru>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> I don't see why it would be really. > > We can imagine the API being standardized and the transport iterating > underneath it. That's just good layering. Sure. > For instance, if some system decides to deliver push notifications from the > SMS baseband protocol, should we, as the web platform, decide that's a bad > thing for them to be doing? I say "no", not because I don't want full specs, > but because precluding opening this power to developers seems foolhardy at > the level of an API contract. > > If we want to recommend that this WG open up a new effort to specify > transport and message formats, great. But their API doesn't require it. We > shouldn't either. Their API is somewhat tied to the transport layer though. It does not hand you a URL for nothing... I don't really see how else you could do that kind of bridging either. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 13:42:28 UTC