search

w3c / webmediaporting

Web Media porting spec
1 stars 10 forks source link

proposal to change title of this spec to include "integration" #1

Open jpiesing opened 7 years ago

jpiesing commented 7 years ago

IMHO this spec is more about the integration of an HTML5 UA onto a media device and not just porting. I believe some people will ignore a document called only "porting" thinking it's not relevant to them when actually it is. I don't mind if we call it "porting and integration" if people think having "porting" in the title is important but I believe it's important to have "integration" in the title as well.

mavgit commented 7 years ago

I'm happy to use whatever is the term of art, whether "Porting", "Integration", "Porting and Integration" or some other term.

It would be nice to find what terminology is used by the Chromium, Edge, Gecko and WebKit projects. If there's common terminology in those projects, let's just follow that. Can anyone from these project teams speak to that?

I did some quick, limited searching and found usage of both terms (emphasis added):

Portability The WebKit project seeks to address a variety of needs. We want to make it reasonable to port WebKit to a variety of desktop, mobile, embedded and other platforms. We will provide the infrastructure to do this with tight platform integration, reusing native platform services where appropriate and providing friendly embedding APIs.

Usability To the extent that WebKit features affect the user experience, we want them to work in accordance with good human interface design principles, and to mesh well with platform-native HI conventions. Furthermore, we strive to integrate with platform accessibility features to allow access for all users, including those with disabilities. https://webkit.org/project/

Gecko runs today on Win32 (Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1), Mac OS X 10.5 and later, and Linux. OEMs and contributors from the Net participating in mozilla.org are porting Gecko to other platforms. Such porting efforts are underway for Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, Irix, OS/2, OpenVMS, BeOS, and Amiga, among others. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Gecko/FAQ

Chromium is a large and complex cross-platform product. We try to share as much code as possible between platforms, while implementing the UI and OS integration in the most appropriate way for each. While this gives a better user experience, it adds extra complexity to the code. This document describes the recommended practices for keeping such cross-platform code clean. ... When porting, consider converting cases of the latter model to the former model if the UI element is something simple like a dialog box. https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/conventions-and-patterns-for-multi-platform-development

Development Guides ... Linux Development tips and porting guide https://www.chromium.org/developers

Ozone is a meta-platform (http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/ozone) for porting Chromium to new platforms that would otherwise require landing a new platform in the chromium tree. This list is for ozone-related discussions, change notifications, porting help, etc. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/ozone-dev

michelnev commented 7 years ago

I agree with adding Integration to the title. The way I've always viewed it is:

jpiesing commented 7 years ago

I agree with adding Integration to the title. The way I've always viewed it is:

Porting is the process of getting a software package (application) compiling/running on the device.
Integration means pulling in the ported software package into the device's software stack.

+1

mavgit commented 7 years ago

I also agree with the definitions of porting and integration above. Given those definitions, it seems clear to me that all of our spec will be related to integration and none will be about actual porting (i.e. "compiling/running on the device").

So, is the consensus for "Porting and Integration" or for simply for switching to "Integration"?

michelnev commented 6 years ago

Following up from today's call, I'd vote for simply using "Integration"

michelnev commented 6 years ago

Can we do a call for consensus on this one?

mavgit commented 6 years ago

I agree we have consensus that "Integration" is better than "Porting and Integration".

So, eliminating any mention of "porting", should the full spec title be:

Web Media User Agent Integration

or something else?