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

Re: Rechartering WebApp WG

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:18:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4B7411AA.2060408@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi, Art-

Thanks for the feedback.

Arthur Barstow wrote (on 2/9/10 9:34 AM):
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:25 AM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
>> We are interested in comments to refine the charter before submitting it
>> to the Advisory Committee and W3C management for review.
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html
> The changes from the current [Charter] look good Doug!

Thanks, happy to help.

> Some additional changes I propose, using [PubStatus] as a guide for some
> of the comments:
> 3.1 - a straight diff on the draft and [Charter] shows a relatively
> significant set of changes. However, there are really just 3 additions:
> Alternate Input Device Events, PostMessage + MessageChannel and Web
> Notifications. Perhaps it would be useful if these three additions were
> marked up such that these additions were easily identified.

Added a paragraph describing the changes, and notated each of the new 

> 3.1 - it would be convenient if all of the specs included pointers to
> their EDs (links are missing for Clipboard, DOM, File API, Progress
> Events, PostMessage/MessageChannel, Selectors L1 and L2, Web
> Notifications, XBL2, XHR L1 and L2).


> 3.1 - CORS is included as a 1st-level bullet and a sub-bullet of "Secure
> Cross-Domain Scriptiong". I would delete CORS' 1st-level bullet.

Copy/paste error... removed.

> 3.1 - Widgets specs: we have already started to remove the "Widgets
> 1.0:" prefix for the spec names and this draft charter should do the
> same (e.g. change "Widgets 1.0: Updates" to "Widget Updates").


> 3.1 - re Widgets View Modes - there are actually two related EDs so I
> would change this to "Widgets View Mode: a media feature and API related
> to presentation mode".


> 3.3 - I think you can delete the "Notes:" line


> 4.1 - besides XHR, at least one of the widget specs (TWI) has a
> dependency on the HTML5 spec.


> 4.2 - re CSS WG, change the text to "To collaborate on the Selectors API
> and widget media feature specifications"


> 2., 3.1 and 4.2 all refer to the "Canvas Graphics API". What is this API
> and would it make sense to consolidate this info in one or two places in
> the charter?

Removed from 2. and 3.1.  Probably won't happen anyway, but it has been 
split out as a separate HTML WG deliverable, so it's good to be prepared 
in case more upheaval happens.

> 4.2 - "Security Group?" - it's not clear what this is about. Is this the
> informal security IG (public-web-security) or the XML Security WG or
> something else?

TLR is working on putting together a Security Interest Group, but it 
won't be ready in time, so I've commented this out.

> 4.2 - re the MAWG, given WebApps' history with Media related spec work,
> perhaps the text should be a bit more specific e.g "To integrate
> consistent APIs for multimedia functionality e.g. MAWG's <a
> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/">API for Media Resource
> 1.0</a>".


> 4.3. - the Web Sockets protocol is in scope for IETF's HyBi (not their
> HTTP WG) and it should be explicitly identified. I think this can be
> addressed by using "... keep pace with the IETF's HTTP and <a
> href="http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/hybi-charter.html">HyBi</a>
> groups' work ...".


> 9. Given WAF and Device API WGs closed almost two years ago, I would
> delete the "Please also see ..." sentence.

Changed to a link to previous charter.

> Lastly, 4 specs are listed in [PubStatus] and not included in the draft
> charter. Above I propose a way to reflect our interest in what [Charter]
> calls Media Object, but re the other three:
> a. Element Traversal - it seems like this should be explicitly included
> in the charter with a caveat that no work will be done except errata
> handling if the need arises.

Added back, with notes.

> b. File Upload - does the group now consider this work taken over by the
> File API and File System spec or is there something here we want to
> explicitly include in the draft?

Added a note in File API that it replaces File Upload.

> c. Window object - given the wording in 3.1 re HTML5 "split out", I
> presume it's OK for the draft to not explicitly include this spec since
> this wording would permit WebApps to take it (given an Editor, etc.).

That was the previous suggestion, so I removed it.  I would be happy to 
add it back if we had an editor who will follow through on it, but those 
are scarce.

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 14:18:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:22 UTC