Re: HTML5 File

Were it not for file* I, and perhaps Google as a whole, would likely leave
DAP (though I cannot speak for everyone). Nothing else there is of interest
to me right now.

On Jun 3, 2010 4:13 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:02 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
>> holds a certain amount of sway.
>
> Decisions of what is in scope for a WG are made by the members (i.e. you)
when a WG is created. When DAP was created, people felt rather strongly
(personally, I disagreed, I know that Arun had similar concerns) that adding
deliverables to WebApps would be a bad idea as it already had many, and
because there was already a lot of traffic on its list. This was discussed
publicly in the months leading up to DAP being chartered (including with
involvement from Mozilla participants) but the eventual balance became the
one we have today. I think (though I do not know for sure) that one factor
in this was the fact that the File API which is so nicely alive today had,
while DAP was being chartered, not been updated since 2006 and was still
called the "File Upload API".
>
> I'm not saying that the above is good, I'm just answering your question :)
>
>> I'd imagine that it would get a lot
>> more review and attention from browser companies on WebApps.
>
> Well, technically, whenever there's an update or important question, it's
discussed here anyway.
>
>> Apple isn't on DAP at all
>
> Which makes one speculate whether IP issues might have weighed in the
balanced to have DAP's deliverables be in a separate group.
>
>> and everyone from mozilla that works on related APIs are not on the DAP
list
>
> I think you mean "not everyone" rather than "everyone are not". There are
Mozilla people working on APIs that are on DAP.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>
>
>