Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Editorial: Add Contacts API history note #58

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 8, 2023
Merged

Editorial: Add Contacts API history note #58

merged 4 commits into from
Mar 8, 2023

Conversation

anssiko
Copy link
Member

@anssiko anssiko commented Jan 24, 2023

@anssiko anssiko requested a review from tantek January 24, 2023 08:50
@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jan 24, 2023

Related TAG discussion: w3ctag/tag.w3.org#22

Further work on top of this would be to expand this note with a (brief) explanation on what differentiates this proposal from the past efforts that did not gain traction. The spec editors are in the best position to do so.

Copy link
Member

@marcoscaceres marcoscaceres left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm, though I don't know if we should claim anything about the "rich history"... I think the community just generally got better at designing these things, even if those APIs didn't get any look at when this new API was designed.

@rayankans, is that a fair assessment?

Thus, I'd personally be inclined to drop "and this API strives to learn from this rich history" and just acknowledge the past... maybe we can should move this into an Acknowledgments section?

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

Oh, I found this (in the README): #31

I wonder if we should just migrate that over from the README?

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jan 26, 2023

Updated to explain what differentiates this proposal from the past.

@rayankans
Copy link
Collaborator

I think the community just generally got better at designing these things, even if those APIs didn't get any look at when this new API was designed.

Kind of, all of the previous attempts were designed with full & perpetual access (gated by a permission) in mind, which is far from ideal, and contact edit access, which is not a use-case we found any legitimate interest in. These fundamental differences made us decide to start a new proposal rather than build on top of the previous ones.

maybe we can should move this into an Acknowledgments section?

+1, that seems like a more appropriate place

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jan 27, 2023

Moved to an Acknowledgments section.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jan 30, 2023

@tantek friendly ping. Do you think this PR will address your issue documented in https://tantek.com/2020/026/t2

@anssiko anssiko requested a review from marcoscaceres February 2, 2023 18:53
@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Feb 6, 2023

Thanks @marcoscaceres for the improvements and review.

@tantek any last-minute suggestions before we merge this? I think it is helpful to have this text in the spec so future generations will find the prior work and can learn from it. Thanks for raising this issue in your blog to begin with.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Mar 8, 2023

I'll merge this Acknowledgments update and we will capture any additional feedback in subsequent PRs.

@tantek if this PR does not address your initial concern, please let us know.

@anssiko anssiko merged commit e27a608 into main Mar 8, 2023
@anssiko anssiko deleted the history branch March 8, 2023 09:35
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 8, 2023
SHA: e27a608
Reason: push, by anssiko

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants