W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > March 2015

"Consensus" Re: Informal CfC to close the SysApps WG

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:35:07 +0200
Message-ID: <551942FB.7050201@gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
On 2015-03-30 13:13, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 3/26/15 2:42 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>> I think it's likely this WG will close.
> Would someone please provide a short summary of the consensus of the
> proposed fate/plan of each of the documents in SysApps' roadmap

I do not (in any way) represent "Consensus" but rather an independent developer in this space.

IMO, the core problem is that SysApps lack a suitable deployment model.
It still unclear to me who is going to "vet" such applications and how are they going to be distributed.

For some of the SysApp APIs user permissions may be enough, for other APIs I believe the need
for standardization is hardly bigger than it is to standardize Android/iOS/Windows.

I.e. just because an application is expressed in HTML5/JS does not automatically mean
that it must/should run on any HTML5/JS platform.

However, the need for using these APIs from the Web still remains which is a reason
why I have proposed building on the already established "App" infrastructure and rather
enable "ordinary" web-applications to securely "call" this layer:



> <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/#roadmap>? Phase 1 specs in particular:
> * App Lifecycle
> * App URI
> * Task Scheduler
> * Contacts
> * Messaging
> * Telephony
> * TCP UDP Sockets
> * Runtime & Security Model - Discontinued in favor of App Lifecycle
> * App Manifest - WebApps
> If there is consensus on the fate/plan of Phase 2 specs
> <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/#future>, please provide that data too.
> -Thanks, AB
Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 12:35:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 March 2015 12:35:40 UTC