[admin] Proposed revision to W3C Notes for TR shelved items to clarify status

I agree with Mats regarding wording and providing record of rationale [1] - I propose concrete text below. 

Specifically I propose REMOVING the text  "This is a historical document. The domain covered by this document is still within the scope of the Working Group as defined in its Charter." 

and in its place adding the text in a-d below for the specific cases (text is in brackets) as well as a consistent following paragraph for all. (Please update the reference handles appropriately).

a)  System Information API, http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/system-info/NOTE.src.html

[[

The System Information API was defined to enable API access to a wide variety of information about the user system, including sensor, power, network, interfaces, codec and other information.  While working on this specification the DAP working group <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Nov/att-0204/minutes-2011-11-16.html">decided</a> there would be advantages to working on specifications focused on specific modules, enabling faster specification development, reduced scope of testing as well as the potential for reduced privacy and security attack surfaces.  Work on the System Information API specification was discontinued in favor of modular specifications, for example Battery API [BATTERY],  Ambient Light Events [AMBIENT-LIGHT-EVENTS] , Proximity Events [PROXIMITY-EVENTS], and the Vibration API [VIBRATION-API].  (<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Nov/0028.html">Call for consensus to discontinue work</a>). Note, a Sensor API was considered by the working group but also abandoned for similar reasons.

]]


b) Messaging API, http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/messaging/NOTE.src.html

[[

The Messaging API was defined to enable API access to a variety of messaging mechanisms, including SMS, MMS and e-mail.  While working on this specification the DAP working group reduced the functionality to address security concerns, reducing the scope to the point where the group <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Nov/att-0204/minutes-2011-11-16.html">decided</a> to discontinue the work (<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Nov/0029.html">call for consensus to shelve</a>). The System Applications Working Group has work related to messaging, based on different assumptions about the security context.

]]

c) Calendar API, http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/calendar/NOTE.src.html

[[

The Calendar API was intended to enable API access to a user's calendar information.  The DAP working group worked on both the data format and both calendar and calendar Event interfaces but then decided to change the approach to enable general Web use both to address security concerns and to enable wider use in a web context. The <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Sep/0097.html">plan was to learn from developing the Contacts API</a> and apply this work to the Calendar API.  The Contacts API was revised to use Web Intents and then discontinued when Web Intents work was stopped. Subsequently work on the Calendar API was also discontinued following a Working Group <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Sep/att-0131/minutes-2012-09-26.html#item07">decision</a>.

]]


d) For intents related drafts:

* Pick Media Intent, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/default/gallery/NOTE.src.html

[[

The Pick Media Intent defines how Web Intents may be used enable access to  a user's gallery. Work on this specification has been discontinued since the Web Intents specification has been published as a W3C Working Group Note indicating no further development on the Recommendation track at this time. Implementation support has also been removed from existing systems (e.g.  <a href="https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-January/023537.html">WebKit</a>) precluding interoperability testing. Issues related to Web Intents were outlined in a <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Mar/0023.html">mail message on the DAP mailing list </a>.

]]

* Pick Contacts Intent, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/default/contacts/NOTE.src.html

[[

The Pick Contacts Intent defines how Web Intents may be used enable access to  a user's address book. Work on this specification has been discontinued since the Web Intents specification has been published as a W3C Working Group Note indicating no further development on the Recommendation track at this time. Implementation support has also been removed from existing systems (e.g.  <a href="https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-January/023537.html">WebKit</a>) precluding interoperability testing. Issues related to Web Intents were outlined in a <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Mar/0023.html">mail message on the DAP mailing list </a>.

]]

* Web Intents Addendum - Local Services,  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/default/wi-addendum-local-services/NOTE.src.html

[[

The Web Intents Addendum defines how Web Intents may be used to discover services on a local network. Work on this specification has been discontinued since the Web Intents specification has been published as a W3C Working Group Note indicating no further development on the Recommendation track at this time. Implementation support has also been removed from existing systems (e.g.  <a href="https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-January/023537.html">WebKit</a>) precluding interoperability testing. Issues related to Web Intents were outlined in a <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Mar/0023.html">mail message on the DAP mailing list </a>.

]]

For each of documents, please also add a new paragraph after the proposed text, as follows:

[[

The Charter of the Device APIs working group continues to include this work as "in scope", so the working group could decide to resume work if warranted by new information. 

]]


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2011Nov/0123.html

On Dec 30, 2013, at 12:11 PM, ext Mats Wichmann wrote:

> On 12/30/2013 05:43 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> On 04 Nov 2013, at 17:16, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
>> 
>>> The CfC to publish W3C Notes for the shelved DAP specifications that had WD publications has completed.
>>> 
>>> Given the support on the DAP call and no disagreement on the list we will publish the Notes using the method suggested by Wayne (see below, thanks again Wayne).
>> 
>> To clarify the status of the shelved DAP specification, I’ve prepared a bunch of W3C Working Group Notes:
> ...
>> Yep. The contents of the W3C Working Group Notes is pruned down to:
>> 
>> * The standard headers (spec name, maturity, pub date, /TR links, editors, boilerplate)
>> * Abstract (from the latest published version)
>> * Status of This Document (identical in all the specifications)
>> 
>> This minimalistic template has been used before as Wayne pointed out, for example see:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-acss
> 
> These look pretty okay to me.  I'd possibly nitpick some of the wording,
> for example in:
> 
> "The domain covered by this document is still within the scope..."
> 
> I would not use "domain" as while it has a common meaning that we're
> likely to informally assume, it does have a rather specific meaning
> within the DOM model, which is not the same thing. Possibly "problem
> space" could be an alternative term?
> 
> For "is still" I might say "remains".
> 
> But that level of nitpicking could just come down to personal opinions.
> 
> Really though, the question is how a reader understands what is going
> on.  Each of these has an Abstract to which one might react "hmm, that
> could be useful.  So why was work discontinued?"  Is the answer to that
> purely to go to the mailing list archive and hunt for relevant messages?
> Or do we somewhere show additional guidance (selfish question, since I'm
> quite new to the WG and don't know the history).
> 
> For example, the systeminfo API draft that was abandoned contains this
> terminology: "Issues and editors notes in the document highlight some of
> the points on which the group is still working and would particularly
> like to get feedback" which might lead to some problem descriptions, but
> there are no issues or editors notes that I can find.  Meanwhile, I know
> that Tizen is proceeding with a systeminfo api which is quite important
> to the project.
> 
> -- mats
> 
>

Received on Monday, 30 December 2013 20:59:48 UTC