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

Re: Regarding to Application Lifecycle and Events spec

From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:16:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEC208undtVOYSPGaG4+e8+uYcPDDLGMCMTQJu_iaXUWa1dgtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Cc: Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk73@gmail.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Both Anssi and Marcos pretty much summed up my point of view. When Service
Workers are out there and we have gotten some real user feedback, we will
revisit the spec and see what makes sense, while making sure it is aligned
with any other extension spec

Kenneth


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:

> 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, we’d 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, I’d like to have the spec scope sync’d 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi
>



-- 
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 09:16:40 UTC

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