W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2013

[runtime] Privileged Applications Extensions spec proposal

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:48:28 +0000
To: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <668D876E-5F03-4444-8A3C-F9AEFB98308D@intel.com>
Hi All,

I'd like to revisit the discussion around splitting ApplicationManagement interface [1] and other parts of the Runtime spec relevant to privileged applications only into their own spec. In the original thread [2] Marcos and Jonas +1'd the idea, and I'm also in favour of the proposal. 

To make this more concrete this time, I took a stab at the issue and carved out a "Privileged Applications Extensions" spec proposal (name up for bikeshedding):


And here's the Runtime spec with the content that went into the "Privileged Applications Extensions" spec removed:


In summary, the ApplicationManagement interface [1] and the "Privileged applications" sections [3] moved into the extension spec, and Application.uninstall() was flagged as a potential candidate for inclusion as noted at [4]. I added and rephrased some non-normative prose to make it fit the context of the extensions spec better, added an introduction section driven by use cases, referenced the Runtime spec where appropriate, and fixed some editorial issues. Most importantly, I did not do any normative changes that would break running code. 

In the Runtime spec, I just removed the sections that went into the extension spec.

For details, see the commit history:


As a recap from earlier discussions, some motivation for the split:

* interfaces that are exposed to privileged apps should logically go into their own spec

* the split makes the trust boundary between privileged and other APIs more clear

* Runtime spec should be implementable on its own merits, with or without "Privileged Applications Extensions"

* partitioning the API surface should attract wider review, implementations

* the group should be able to reach consensus on more mature and less controversial parts of the Runtime spec faster, and at the later stage on the Rec Track pass the interop gate more easily

* in short, the group should be able to ship faster this way

If the group feels this is the right way forward, I can can send a pull request. I'm also happy to help with future edits.

All - WDYT? Do you have concerns re splitting out parts that are relevant to privileged applications only into a separate spec as proposed above?



[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/runtime/#idl-def-ApplicationManagement
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Mar/0017.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/runtime/#privileged-applications
[4] https://github.com/sysapps/runtime/issues/92
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 17:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:13 UTC