W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:03:48 -0700
Cc: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
Message-id: <51D49C0C-D52B-4271-9B75-5BAE3F3BBFEA@apple.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>

On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:06:21 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak  
> <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and  
>>> programmable http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide  
>>> resources for editing and reviewing proposals for all three  
>>> deliverables.
>>
>> We already have a broad charter and quite a few deliverables.  
>> Before we add more to the charter, I'd like to understand the  
>> degree of interest in request interception and programmable http  
>> cache. Is anyone besides Oracle interested in pursuing this  
>> technology? Are any implementors interested in implementing it?
>
> We are "potentially interested" - i.e. we want to see how the spec  
> comes out first. Given that this is in the scope of existing  
> deliverables, and given taht Oracle are providing the resources to  
> edit it, I see no reason to simply stand in their way. If there  
> turns out not to be interst, then it will have a tough time getting  
> to Rec. There are specs people claim to be very interested in, but  
> are not prpared to put ay resources into moving forward - so clearly  
> general surveys of interest are a poor way of understanding reality.

I think a B-Tree style storage API would clearly be in scope of  
existing deliverables. However, it's not clear to me that Oracles's  
other proposals (programmable http cache, request interception) are.  
As I understand it, those technologies don't really relate to storage,  
or even networking as such, but are meant to serve a role similar to  
HTML5's Application Cache feature. Also, Nikunj's request was to add  
these things to the charter, from which I infered the charter doesn't  
already obviously cover them.

It's hard for me to evaluate Apple's interest in these technologies  
without seeing a concrete proposal for these features, so I definitely  
don't object to a draft. But I don't see justification for changing  
the charter at this time.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 4 July 2009 14:04:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT