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

Re: HTML5 File

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:58:08 +0200
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, ifette@google.com, Cristiano Sumariva <sumariva@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <59B2359A-3624-469A-9DE9-AE228BD10BA2@berjon.com>
To: arun@mozilla.com
On Jun 4, 2010, at 22:36 , Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 6/3/10 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> 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

I know, but that's from two months ago, not from last year (which is what I was referring to).

> 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.

Those are certainly good arguments. My sole concern is that they're not really geared towards solving problems (see more below). Right now they're getting implementor review, and they're being synchronised where they need to.

>> 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?

Speaking personally, with all my hats off, I really, really don't care either way. As far as I'm concerned, both File Writer and File Directory have 1) an active editor who's going a really good job and 2) since any major change is discussed on WebApps anyway a solid process of community review with strong implementer involvement. It doesn't seem broken, and as a consequence, call me lazy but that makes me disinclined to want to fix it. I haven't taken DAP's pulse on this, but if a single person doesn't like it and throws a tantrum, we have a bigger problem after the "fix" than before.

So if you're really adamant I can take it to DAP, but it would be helpful to have better arguments than "things could go wrong, even though everything's worked out fine so far" or "it would be neater" :) The only thing that tends to incline me towards a transfer is the fact that I can't seem to find a single comment on Eric's drafts from someone in DAP who isn't also in WebApps. But again, that's more in the neatness domain.

And of course DAP's an open house, you can raise the issue there directly!

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 09:59:06 GMT

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