On Jun 1, 2009, at 18:26, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Imagine that a new groups need to be set up to deal with Camara- privacy, Contacts-privacy, etc., etc.,... this stuff is going to take like 10 years to sort out.
One might argue that camera shouldn't be an API but a UI extension of the <input type=file> file picker and that the operations of adding contacts or calendar items should be based on user initiating an action on microformat/microdata marked-up part of a page. It's easy to see how the Right Thing and time-to-market are at odds here.
Also, it is hard to tell if Mozilla has done a good job or not with their UIs: Those APIs and the corresponding user interfaces have not been in the wild long enough to be able to give an objective assessment...
Fair point.
For the purpose of the disposition of comments, and as far as the current text in the specification goes, can I record that your comments have been addressed?
You may record my questions as addressed with the commenter agreeing except for one case:
I still think that the policy of having to use <feature> to activate a feature should be presumptively limited to widget-oriented features instead of being presumptively required for new features in general.
I'll start new threads for additional comments -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
