How I see it is, they base all spec writing on providing use cases, and if there's one thing that we can do, it's providing those. With that in mind, I don't care (very much) _how_ the API ends up looking as long as use cases that we deem critical are addressed. An extension of this is, if we are adamant about a specific API for a specific bit of functionality, as long as we provide a working implementation in a "production" environment (which we definitely qualify as), then the W3C has a working example to base a spec on.
Conclusion: we can influence this kind of stuff a lot more than we realize. On 4/11/13 6:17 PM, "Simon MacDonald" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - Got beat up a bit about Cordova's lack of participation in the W3C. >> Moving >> forward I'll try be more diligent about bringing our community's >>feedback >> into the standards discussion. Good point made to me was that even if a >> draft has changed and the feedback may not be applicable to a current >> draft of an API (I.e. Contacts), providing feedback is still useful >>(were >> the standards decisions validated or not?). >> > >Ha! I remember back when we were implementing the W3C Contact API. I was >"attempting" to enter the discussion but I was stonewalled at every turn. >It is kinda hard to imply that you are looking down one's nose in email >but >they were pretty successful at it. > >Simon Mac Donald >http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
