1079939 - "Certified" APIs don't offer any certification and therefor should be renamed

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Developer Documentation Graveyard :: Apps, defect)

Description

[:Harald Kirschner :digitarald]

Certified API are neither certified by us or can be accessed after going through certification.

This came up repeatedly as a question from app partners that started their app using certified APIs (like services to block spam and identify incoming calls). They eventually ask what the certification process is.

Some ideas for a better label for "certified"
- "internal" or "pvt" in the spirit of our servers
- "preloaded" as only preloaded apps can use it
- "proprietary" as most of them are not on any standards track

Comment 1

[(no longer active)]

I don't know why we originally called these certified and I'm not sure how much work it would be to rename them and whether that would be worth it.  Needinfo'ing Fabrice too.

But out of curiosity, isn't it just a matter of not referring to these APIs as certified on MDN?  I think "Internal" would be a better name.

Comment 2

[:Harald Kirschner :digitarald]

A change only in the docs sounds OK. CC'ing cmills for extra input, as it could be confusing to have 2 names.

Comment 3

[Chris Mills [:cmills]]

I agree that regardless of what they are actually called in the syntax, this problem could largely be solved by just not referring to them as certified, on MDN and elsewhere.

One thing I would like is a bit of background as to why they were originally called "certified", so that I can include a succinct explanation somewhere. Because y'know, people will ask, and it's better than having to answer the same question on the mailing list loads of times ;-)

My personal pick for a new name is "Restricted", because they are highly restricted, and not open to normal developers. Privileged APIs are somewhat restricted in the circumstances in which they can be used, but open for use by everyone so long as they stay within those circumstances.

Thoughts?

Comment 4

[(no longer active)]

Well, calling them "Restricted" may just prompt people to ask how they can get those restrictions lifted.  Honestly I think the only thing we need to do here is to rename this banner in MDN:

"This API is available on Firefox OS for certified applications only."

to:

"This API is available on Firefox OS for built-in applications only."

Comment 5

[Chris Mills [:cmills]]

(In reply to :Ehsan Akhgari (not reading bugmail, needinfo? me!) from comment #4)
> Well, calling them "Restricted" may just prompt people to ask how they can
> get those restrictions lifted.  Honestly I think the only thing we need to
> do here is to rename this banner in MDN:
> 
> "This API is available on Firefox OS for certified applications only."
> 
> to:
> 
> "This API is available on Firefox OS for built-in applications only."

Hrm, I can see your point. So, rather than try to call them a different name, just omit the name altogether, and just describe them as the APIs that can only be used in built-in applications, or perhaps "default applications".

Comment 6

[:Harald Kirschner :digitarald]

(In reply to :Ehsan Akhgari (not reading bugmail, needinfo? me!) from comment #4)
> Well, calling them "Restricted" may just prompt people to ask how they can
> get those restrictions lifted.

I like that, so it's not only me :)

Comment 7

[[:fabrice] Fabrice Desré]

I don't know who came up with the "certified" name either. My money on either Jonas or Paul T. though.

I agree with the proposal in comment 4. Renaming certified to anything else would just add confusion.

Comment 8

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

I will take no blame for this name :)

The wording "built-in" can be somewhat confusing though. Since apps can be preinstalled. I think I like "internal" better.

Comment 9

[Chris Mills [:cmills]]

(In reply to Jonas Sicking (:sicking) from comment #8)
> I will take no blame for this name :)
> 
> The wording "built-in" can be somewhat confusing though. Since apps can be
> preinstalled. I think I like "internal" better.

I would be happy with "internal". Any more strong opinions here, before I put something into action?

Comment 10

[(no longer active)]

(In reply to Chris Mills (Mozilla, MDN editor) [:cmills] from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jonas Sicking (:sicking) from comment #8)
> > I will take no blame for this name :)
> > 
> > The wording "built-in" can be somewhat confusing though. Since apps can be
> > preinstalled. I think I like "internal" better.
> 
> I would be happy with "internal". Any more strong opinions here, before I
> put something into action?

Go for it!  Thanks.

Comment 11

[Chris Mills [:cmills]]

I've updated the macro that produces the banner Ehsan was talking about, as you can see on this page:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Mobile_Connection_API

I also made changes to these pages so that the usage of "internal" will make a bit more sense for people who see the banner and then read those pages later:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/App_permissions
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Security/Application_security
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Marketplace/Options/Packaged_apps
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/Manifest

Comment 12

[(no longer active)]

I still see the old banner on <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Power_Management_API>, for example.

Comment 13

[Chris Mills [:cmills]]

(In reply to :Ehsan Akhgari (not reading bugmail, needinfo? me!) from comment #12)
> I still see the old banner on
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Power_Management_API>, for
> example.

This is because the pages on MDN are static pages, regenerated periodically by the MDN backend. Therefore you won't see them all update straight away. If you find a page that's not updated, you can force a regeneration of the page by doing a Shift + Reload on it.

Comment 14

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

Since then we regenerated all the pages, so I'm calling this done. Reopen if I'm wrong.