devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Keil <>
Subject Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:30:19 GMT
What controls instantiation of the Builders are XML files like
even that is not strictly mandated by W3C DDR that it has to be called that
way, it is more or less implementation specific. It is "Spring-like" thus
it could rather easily be replaced by a true DI mechanism on top of Spring,
Guice or Apache DeltaSpike in future versions;-)

While preserving the W3C compliant implementations. In theory even adding
W3C compliance to a future version of the "Parser" seems possible, it may
simply have 2 clients grow together some day...


On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Werner Keil <> wrote:

> None, that's why a new W3C version could read a changed structure just
> like file parsers do.
> There are standard definitions like "core Vocabulary", but that also
> mainly describes what "minimal set of properties" should be present.
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Werner Keil <>
>> wrote:
>> > ...If in a year or more the structure may so drastically change, that
>> some or
>> > all files became incompatible with the W3C standard, none of us can
>> tell...
>> What are the requirements on our device data files to allow you to
>> produce a W3C DDR compatible client?
>> My understanding is that W3C DDR is an API spec, so I'm not sure what
>> it has to do with how the data is stored.
>> -Bertrand

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message