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

Re: HTML5 File

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:36:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4C0963B6.80905@mozilla.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, ifette@google.com, Cristiano Sumariva <sumariva@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 6/3/10 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon 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.

To be clear, I was *very much in favor* of FileAPI-related items being 
added to WebApps, but was less enthusiastic about Widget-related items 
or the Web SQL Database item.  David Baron, Mozilla's Advisory Committee 
Representative, made this stance public in a blog post:

http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2010/04/30/mozilla-at-w3c-review-of-web-applications-wg-charter/

I'll note that the current charter -- 
http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/ --  uses the following language 
when discussing File API:

" An API for representing file objects in web applications, as well as 
programmatically selecting them and accessing their data. This may 
include file writing and file system APIs. This replaces the File Upload 
specification."

This language in my opinion certainly includes FileWriter and anything 
FileSystem related, and moving from DAP --> WebApps should NOT warrant a 
charter review.  This language was approved by all members.  Moving to 
file-related APIs to WebApps (from DAP) has the following advantages:

1. Wide implementor review.  My concern is that not ALL browser vendors 
are members of DAP; ALL browser vendors are members of WebApps.  
Moreover, since a charter review/amendment doesn't seem necessary, given 
the inclusive language around file APIs, I think there is a strong case 
to be made for this work to proceed in WebApps.

2. Family of specifications living together.  Changes to FileAPI impace 
XHR (at least with the introduction of ArrayBuffers); Blob is useful in 
other areas, and FileWriter proposes a BlobBuilder.


> 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".
>    

This is true.  But, I see no impediment to changing this for the better, 
given the existing charter language on WebApps.  Do you, or does anyone 
that is a member of the DAP WG?  Likewise, does any member of the 
WebApps WG object strongly?

-- A*
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 20:36:43 GMT

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