W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Adopting postMessage and MessageChannel from HTML5?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:17:22 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <F040D670-88BB-40C6-B62F-295819935D96@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Hi Art,

On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Thanks for the clarifications Maciej. I don't have any objections to  
> WebApps taking on this work.
>
> However, since this functionality is not within the scope of  
> WebApps' current Charter [Charter], if we do have consensus within  
> the WG that it should be added (and I can start a CfC to determine  
> this), we can propose it be added to WebApps' Charter when the  
> current Charter is renewed (current Charter expires 30-June-2009). I  
> think the overhead of re-Chartering now for just this one  
> deliverable is too high.

I assume you meant 30-June-2010. I agree that an extra recharter  
before those 6 months are up isn't worth it, if it is indeed necessary.

However, I believe that this spec actually is within our charter.  
Overall, Section 2 of the charter, Scope, states: "The scope of the  
Web Applications Working Group covers the technologies related to  
developing client-side applications on the Web, including both markup  
vocabularies for describing and controlling client-side application  
behavior and programming interfaces for client-side development." This  
spec is pretty clearly a "programming interface for client-side  
development". It is true that the charter gives some specific  
examples, but I do not believe they are intended to be exhaustive and  
do not cover all deliverables.

It is true that Section 3.1 of the charter, Recommendation-Track  
Deliverables, does not expicitly list this spec. However, I believe  
that set of deliverables is meant to be a minimum, not a maximum.  
Right after the list, it says "For a detailed summary of the current  
list of deliverables, and an up-to-date timeline, see the WebApps WG  
Deliverables," implying that we may change our specific list of  
deliverables. Indeed, we have added deliverables such as WebSimpleDB,  
DataCache, Selectors 2 and UMP that are not explicitly listed in the  
charter.

In addition, a subsection of 3.1, Other Specifications, states:  
"Therefore, in addition to the specifications already in draft status,  
the Web Applications Working Group may take on additional  
specifications necessary to enable the creation of Web applications to  
meet the needs of the market as it evolves... Additional WebApps WG  
specifications may arise initially from work begun in other Working  
Groups, such as the HTML Working Group or the SVG Working Group; they  
may also be identified by new submissions from Members, or by market  
research."

And finally, postMessage + MessageChannel comprise an API for cross- 
domain access that is complementary to CORS. Our charter specifically  
states: "Specific deliverables that the WebApps WG may consider when  
resources become available include: An API for cross-domain access,  
related to or complementary to CORS".

Thus, by my reading of the charter, the newly proposed draft ("Web  
Messaging" perhaps?) is squarely within our chartered scope. It is a  
programming interface for client-side development. It is an additional  
specification to enable creation of Web applications to meet the needs  
of the market as it evolves, that arises from work begun in the HTML  
Working Group. It is an API for cross-domain access complementary to  
CORS. It's hard to see how it could be more in scope without being  
explicitly listed, which does not seem to be a requirement.

>
> In the meantime, the new spec can be added to CVS and the group can  
> work on an Editor's Draft but WebApps can't formally publish the  
> spec until the spec is part of WebApps' Charter. If proponents want  
> to formally publish it earlier, the HTML WG can publish it.
>
> Is the above a reasonable way forward?

Seems ok if the work is really out of charter, but see my comments  
above for why I believe it is in scope.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 21:17:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:36 GMT