W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: HTML5 File

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:29:50 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin9x-zgdSVQx8VApk545BzcAcbCMVozk_EvXWg6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Cristiano Sumariva <sumariva@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps@w3.org
Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are definitely
relevant, though I have concerns about the direction they are heading.
Either way though, it seems strange for the filesystem apis to be split.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>wrote:

> 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 17:30:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT