W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:48:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4C17E70E.4060106@mozilla.com>
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)" <BS3131@att.com>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org, Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 6/15/10 1:15 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
> We would not be in favor of this transfer. We believe this API needs to
> be developed in the DAP group, as our vision for its functionality was
> driven by the input from BONDI and in general as a *device* API (as
> compared to an abstracted API for cloud-based file resources), and we do
> not believe that vision will be fulfilled if this work is transferred to
> Webapps.
>    

The BONDI API isn't a good starting place for an API that can be built 
into web browsers, since it doesn't gracefully layer into the existing 
HTML input element model for file selection.  You are making a 
distinction I don't understand clearly, since we're not really 
considering "cloud-based file resources" with the FileReader API.  
Rather, we are considering file resources resident on the device.  The 
API allows you to select them using an input element, and then access 
the file resource and programmatically manipulate it as a Blob.  
Similarly, the FileWriter API allows you to use the "save as" channel to 
write to the device in question.  The FileSystem specification posits an 
abstraction that isn't necessarily "cloud-based" (although FWIW that is 
also possible).

If you have a different vision, then that vision is incompatible with 
web browsers.  In this case, I'd encourage the DAP WG, which *also* has 
a charter to work on file system deliverables, to construct an API which 
matches the use case you have in mind.  You may then pursue the relevant 
BONDI API, which as a browser vendor I cannot consider.

> If the issue is the level of discussion in this group, that can be
> addressed. For one, I have seen quite a lot of traffic on the DAP email
> list about this, so I don't understand the question of activity.
>    

If you note the discussion on FileWriter, you'll see that the lion's 
share of feedback comes from cross-posts to public-webapps@w3.org.  
Feedback from others, including those that post to the DAP WG, is always 
welcome.
> But to start, I will address some of the open topics in the current
> draft on the DAP list, to help get the discussion moving faster.
>
>    

Again, I'd urge you to reconsider your position.  The move of the 
specification in question -- FileWriter and FileSystem -- allows for 
greater collaboration on the same web stack, *and* allows parties that 
are NOT members of the DAP WG to comment on the technology.  Perhaps you 
are misunderstanding the goals here?  Or, perhaps you can provide a 
tighter definition of what you mean by "cloud-based file resources" 
*exactly*?  DAP WG members are, by charter, free to consider technology 
that matches their particular use case.

-- A*
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 20:48:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:10 GMT