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

Re: [runtime] Application Lifecycle and Events - F2F feedback incorporated

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:27:38 +0100
To: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Cc: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>, "<public-sysapps@w3.org>" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8E197D62BC0A43249284587BA89D773F@marcosc.com>


On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:

> Hi Jungkees,
>  
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com (mailto:jungkee.song@samsung.com)> wrote:
>  
> > > I've updated the "Application Lifecycle and Events" draft [1] that we
> > > reviewed at the F2F last week as per the F2F feedback by you recorded at
> > > [2]. The draft is now annotated with many NOTEs (non-normative) and ISSUEs
> > > (normative implications) that map directly to your feedback.
> >  
> > Thanks Anssi. I think this is a good starting point to sort them out.
>  
>  
> Thanks for helping address the remaining open issues from the F2F. We should bake in your suggested changes to the draft once we get it landed to the sysapps runtime repo.
>  
> Marcos is traveling currently, so there may be a slight delay in setting up the infrastructure.
It feels like there is a lot of overlap with the EventWorkers proposal (previously NavController) work taking place here:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/EventWorker

I'm worried about starting a duplicate effort, specially if both Google and Mozilla are already working on EventWorkers (and have been for a while).   

Anssi, I know the model you guys proposed is somewhat different to EventWorkers - but I'm wondering if we can reconcile that somehow… or if that single event page (main) model can be proposed to Alex and Co. who are working on this.

Should we set up a call with them to discuss?  
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 16:28:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:15 UTC