W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Regarding to Application Lifecycle and Events spec

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:13:46 +0000
To: Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk73@gmail.com>
CC: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4BA51B91-79E1-494E-BF23-0C5ACF03BA0D@intel.com>
On 26 Jun 2014, at 20:27, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On June 26, 2014 at 11:08:35 AM, Wonsuk Lee (wonsuk73@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Hi. Annsi and Kenneth.
>> Could you share your opinions for direction of Application Lifecycle and
>> Events[1] spec? FPWD of ServiceWorker spec was released, so I would like
>> to discuss on that.
> (not that anyone asked me, but... ;)) I think the coverage of this spec is fine for a FPWD, but I think we should hold till Service Workers stabilizes a little bit more. Once we gain a bit more experience with SWs in the wild, we should be in a better position to evaluate exactly what is needed. Mozilla and Google are aiming to have SWs out the door in one form or another by Sept., which is not that long from now. 

Given the Service Workers API (in terms of both the spec and implementations) has evolved recently, wed like to re-evaluate the use cases and requirements against the evolved API to see what are the remaining gaps to be filled by this extension. My impression is at least some of the requirements we collectively solicited into this draft in this group have since been addressed by the core SW API.

For a FPWD, Id like to have the spec scope syncd with the SW and other evolving extension specs, so that we do not define overlapping functionality, and ensure consistency. There are multiple SW extensions in the pipeline, and ensuring all the extensions are well integrated with their core dependency as well as consistent between each other needs some agreed upon conventions in the SW spec that are still TBD.

In couple of months we likely have two minimal SW implementations shipping as Marcos noted. That will help us with the evaluation.

So in short, I would not want to rush to the FPWD yet.


Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 08:14:17 UTC

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