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* Update the references that are out of date (e.g. HTML5).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