W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

RE: Updated charter proposal

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:53:44 +0000
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C350FEEB7B1@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>
I suggest if the common ground at this stage of the discussion may be that the Media Storage API could depend on the File API and its related APIs (for argument's sake, if those that think otherwise are willing to consider this), that we start with the assumption (if necessary, stated) that we will base APIs where possible on existing APIs of similar type (e.g. storage access). That would allow us to start the discussion of a specific Media Storage API, attempting to extend the File API ala whatever "depends upon" means, and not defer that discussion to some unspecified future date.

As stated, we would be willing to contribute directly and co-edit if needed, regardless of the design approach that is pursued. So we are willing to get started on this API now.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 2:19 AM
To: public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: Updated charter proposal

Hi SysApps,

Based on the discussion on this list, I've put together an updated
proposal for a charter:

http://abarth.github.com/websec/drafts/sysapps-charter.html

In addition to fixing a couple typos, I've removed the term "browse-by
web" as discussed in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2012May/0028.html>.
 I've also re-worked the deliverables section a bit.  I've split the
deliverables into two phases, as discussed in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2012May/0002.html>.
 I've also added the following paragraph to explain the distinction
between these phases:

---8<---
The working group's deliverables are divided into two phases.
Initially, the working group will focus on deliverables in the first
phase in order to establish patterns and conventions that will be used
for the remaining deliverables. The working group does not necessarily
need to complete work on the phase 1 deliverables before working on
deliverables in phase 2. However, the working group should make some
substantial progress on some of the phase 1 deliverables before
working on phase 2 deliverables.
--->8---

I was able to accomodate most of the requests folks sent to the list.
The notable exceptions are Sensors, Calendar, and Contacts, all of
which are deliverables for the Device APIs working group.  I'd like to
avoid (or at least delay) a "territory" fight with that working group.
 The charter has 16 deliverables, which is more than enough to keep us
busy for two years.  I've also left NFC off the list because it had
already been removed from the W3C version of the charter and seems
likely to be taken up by the Near Field Communications working group.

Despite strong interest on the mailing list, I've placed the Media
Storage API in phase 2.  I think everyone agrees that Media Storage is
an important API, but the issue is that there is strong disagreement
about whether the API should depend on
<http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/>.  This working group will be
the appropriate venue to have that discussion, but starting off with
that discussion before we've all developed working relationships runs
the risk of derailing the working group.  For that reason, I'd like to
gather some momentum on some of the less contentious specs before
opening that can of worms.

Please let me know if you have any feedback.

Many thanks,
Adam
Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 13:54:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 3 June 2012 13:54:41 GMT