Re: Privileged and certified-level app, was Re: Clarity over direction of work on runtime and security model?

On Oct 4, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

[...]

> If I have it right, we envisage a need for a persistent service akin to Android services, and based upon Web Workers. These could be trusted "system" services, or untrusted services with very restricted access to device capabilities.

I'd expect most of the use cases and requirements described in the Application Lifecycle and Events proposal [1] discussed at F2F could be addressed by building atop ServiceWorker, which in itself is a type of Shared Worker. But this needs further exploration still, before we can say for sure.

ServiceWorker aims to address the offline problem, while this group has additional requirements for system-level services that could be addressed similarly, re-using the same browser-friendly model instead of reinventing something new.

Dave - I believe that is what you meant?

> I think this still fits within the SysApps charter, as it is essentially about the run-time model. Web Workers clearly belong to Web Apps WG, but perhaps all we need is a complementary spec that deals with the additional requirements for system level services.

We as a group need to think how (if at all) to draw the line between "trusted system services" and "untrusted services" to borrow Dave's language above.

It should be also noted ServiceWorker is still early work in terms getting it to the standards track as Marcos mentioned, so the timeline and expectations for the group need to be adjusted accordingly.

>> It could be this does not require rechartering at all, just
>> clarifying the goals and the scope without rechartering formally.
> 
> We could provide clarification on the SysApps home page, with additional background on the wiki, or even produce a Working Group Note that sets out the assumptions clearly.


Having something written down e.g. in the wiki sounds good to me.

Do others think this would help the group to land on a shared understanding of the direction and priorities? We have hashed these ideas on this mailing list, but it may be hard to get the big picture if we don't write something down somewhere. This does not have to be something polished like a Note, a living wiki page would do fine IMO. Also might help us communicate the scope of this group to people not actively following the discussions.

WDYT?

Dave - would you like to start drafting a wiki page based on what we've discussion in the group? The participants of the group can start contributing after we have the initial structure in place.

Thanks,

-Anssi

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-lifecycle/#use-cases-and-requirements

[Please note the normative sections of [1] are work in progress, not aligned with ServiceWorker yet.]

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 11:48:02 UTC