Re: Moving the discussion forward

To be clear - I don't personally care where this happens, as long as we can
get the key people (vendors and users (developers)) in the same room.  I'm
going to start making proposals here, because it appears to be closest,
minus Microsoft; if we don't get an HTML WG path set up soon, I'll just
move to proposals in the WHATWG.  And yes, love to get more representation
from libraries that fix appcache; I think the experience from FT, Facebook,
Lanyrd, et al is as close as we can get for now.

-Chris


On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, 28 October 2012 at 17:29, Jake Archibald wrote:
>
> > I'm keen on being part of this chat. Hopefully going to have more time
> > to throw at this soon.
> >
> > I'm unfamiliar with the history of spec development. What are the
> > success stories regarding community groups? What approach did they
> > take?
> >
>
> CGs have only been around for about 1 year… so I don't think there are any
> good historical cases to look at yet. The RICG is currently doing a lot of
> work on Github and it's working really nicely. It allows us to bounce a lot
> of code around (both javascript and in Webkit), gets participants off the
> mailing lists (avoiding a lot of bla bla that takes all the fun out of
> standards), keeps the group focused on milestones and bugs, and produces
> running code.
>
> It might be nice to fork the WHATWG spec around this and just file bugs
> around it. Make some reference implementations on how to fix appcache. Once
> can find a lot more real issues when stuff is actually running and being
> used (specially if there are libraries already that "fix appcache" that can
> be leveraged and studied).
>
> Just my 2c,
> Marcos
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
>
>
>
>