Re: [mif] Adoption of API document as the MIF WG document

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Why not just specify the high-level API right away? Why is this intermediate step necessary? As you say, all the underlying functionality is already available on the various platforms out there.

Which high-level API should we define, Simon?   There is no single high-level API that addresses all use cases.   And while there is piecemeal support for features of the low-level API, at the moment hardly anybody supports all the required functionality, as far as I can tell.   Also, a lot of the functionality is hidden under mid-level APIs that obscure features that would be required to implement the high-level APIs we want.   This is why I think this work is important.

My point is that this document does not completely fulfill the API milestone because it is too low-level. The important part, the one that would have real potential to fix the mess we're in, is the high-level API.

This is an easy problem for you to solve: write a document describing the high-level API you think we need.   Not everyone sees the problem the same way (obviously!) so this would be a very useful contribution, and I don't think it's wrong for the WG to advance both documents, since they solve different problems.