Re: Moving the discussion forward

Hi,

Following up on Art's post below, I think it makes sense for this group to
concentrate on writing up the use cases, requirements and case studies as
originally planned and move the rest of the conversation to the WebApps WG.

Are there any objections to this?

--tobie

On 10/30/12 12:39 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

>Hi Chris, All - FYI, during WebApps' October 30 f2f meetingwe talked
>about a venue for discussing AppCache fixes, updates, etc. Most of the
>WG members that expressed a (strong) opinion re WebAppsvs. HTMLWG vs.
>CG, recommended WebApps. See
><http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webapps-minutes.html#item06> forsome
>details.
>
>-Thanks, AB
>
>On 10/29/12 11:34 PM, ext Chris Wilson wrote:
>> 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

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 22:03:32 UTC