All - the OpenAjax Alliance (OAA) is seeking comments on their Mobile
Device APIs Style Guide:
<http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Mobile_Device_APIs_Style_Guide>
Please see Jon's e-mails below: first includes some rationale for
OAA's request and the second identifies some key questions/issues.
If you have any comments, John requests them by November 15. If you
have write access to [EMAIL PROTECTED], use that address (and
please CC public-webapps); otherwise send the comments to Jon and CC
public-webapps, and he will forward your comments to OAA's mobile
list, archived at:
<http://openajax.org/pipermail/mobile>
WG Members - if there is interest in: a) consolidating comments on
behalf of the WG and/or b) discussing this document in a "meeting"
then some combination of me, Charles, Mike or Doug will facilitate.
Please let us know if there is such interest.
-Regards, Art Barstow
Begin forwarded message:
From: "ext Jon Ferraiolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: October 17, 2008 11:18:15 AM EDT
To: Arthur Barstow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pollington, David,
VF-Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-
Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nick Allott"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Request for W3C review of the OpenAjax Mobile Device
APIs Style Guide
(Add Dan and David from Vodafone and Nick from OMTP)
Art,
The primary reason for asking W3C to review the OpenAjax style
guide isn't because OpenAjax wants feedback, it is because it
appears that there are fragmentation of API approaches across
various W3C and OMTP efforts, and the style guide provides a
vehicle for focusing on those differences and working towards
consistency in the efforts by those two organizations.
The primary motivation behind requesting group discussion within a
committee setting versus public mailing list is because we think
that will be an effective process to achieve the end result of
avoiding fragmentation of API approaches. If the discussion only
occurs on the public mailing list, then some people will say A,
others will say B, and others will say C, with no conclusion.
Remember how unsuccessful Access Control was in reaching
unification on the public lists? It wasn't until people sat
together in a room face-to-face that decisions were made. Access
Control reflecting fragmentation of opinion within a single
technology area. Things are worse here because you have multiple
spec, multiple working groups and multiple standards organizations,
particular, W3C and OMTP. If people don't agree on overall
approaches for APIs, then you'll have strong personalities on each
separate committee trying to ram through the API approach that they
like, and hoping that they can force the rest of the world to match
their vision by stonewalling behind arguments such as "too late to
change" and "devices are already shipping with these APIs".
Consistent APIs are important on their own, but because of security
implications around allowing web pages and web-connected widgets to
gain access to device capabilities, the industry needs to converge
on a common approach to how to establish security frameworks and
policies. Such a common approach will be challenging enough even if
there are consistent APIs across across the range of device APIs,
but will be true chaos if each different spec takes a different
approach.
I'm OK with whatever you decide to do, but our feeling over at
OpenAjax Alliance is that the industry is more likely to arrive at
a good outcome at an early date by making sure that all of the
groups involved in device APIs recognize the need for consistent
APIs, become aware of the other similar initiatives in the industry
(particularly, making sure W3C committees are aware of OMTP's
initiatives with BONDI), and are aware of the different API
approaches that are under consideration.
Thanks.
Jon
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "ext Jon Ferraiolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: October 16, 2008 3:30:07 PM EDT
> To: Arthur Barstow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles McCathieNevile
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Request for W3C review of the OpenAjax Mobile Device APIs
> Style Guide
>
> I am writing this email on behalf of the OpenAjax Alliance.
>
> The OpenAjax Alliance' Mobile Task Force requests that the W3C Web
> Applications WG review and send formal feedback to the OpenAjax
> Alliance on the following document that we have written:
>
> * http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Mobile_Device_APIs_Style_Guide
>
> The above document provides a set of guidelines to the industry
> about how to design good JavaScript APIs for mobile device
> services. OpenAjax Alliance has developed this wiki page in
> response to requests from some of the leadership at OMTP, which
> requested guidelines from the Ajax community on how to design
> friendly and useful APIs. The recommendations reflect our best
> understanding of requirements around Mobile Device APIs found in
> the BONDI documents, and also informed by earlier requirements work
> down at OpenAjax Alliance. Note that our guidelines are totally
> JavaScript-centric because that's our focus area. We recognize that
> W3C has a broader constituency, and therefore some of our proposed
> guidelines might not be the optimal direction for W3C due to
> various factors that OpenAjax Alliance did not take into account.
>
> The main reason for requesting formal review is to promote early
> discussion across the W3C, along with OMTP, about some key API
> design questions that effect multiple technology initiatives at the
> two organizations that involve providing script access to device
> capabilities (e.g., location, address book, file system, phone
> dialer, connectivity status, battery status, bluetooth, camera,
> local email, and local messaging such as SMS and MMS). We can all
> agree that the industry should have consistency across similar
> APIs; however, due to simultaneous work efforts across multiple
> working groups within two major standards bodies (W3C and OMTP),
> there is a risk of different API approaches coming out of the
> different working groups.
>
> The key activities at the W3C that I believe are most relevant are:
>
> * The WebApps WG, which of course is working on a variety of APIs
> * The Widgets subgroup within the WebApps WG, which defines widget
> APIs
> * The Geolocation WG, which has an initial set of location APIs,
> but doesn't appear to be meeting at the Tech Plenary
>
> Probably the most important question is whether device APIs should
> be use direct approaches (e.g., the geolocation spec include this
> API: navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(): see [1]) or
> indirect approaches (e.g., the Widgets APIs spec involves
> requesting an API handler and then invoking APIs off of that
> handler: see [2]). However, we would appreciate feedback on all of
> the key points within the style guide document.
>
> We believe that the best process is to it to get various key
> stakeholders participants in a cross-group discussion (the WebApps
> guys, the Widgets guys, the Geolocation guys, and people from the
> OMTP) to see if this issue can be resolved. The Plenary offers a
> unique opportunity for such a discussion. However, if this request
> is coming in too late or the WebApps WG is fully booked already and
> has no open slots, then as a backup we recommend a cross-group
> coordination phone call soon after the Plenary.
>
> If you feel it is appropriate, feel free to forward this email to
> the appropriate WebApps mailing list.
>
> Thanks.
> Jon Ferraiolo
> On behalf of the Mobile Task Force at OpenAjax Alliance
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/
0604.html
