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

Re: Items not listed as "new" in the draft charter

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:32:47 -0700
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-id: <BF0FB9E5-92B9-4163-B93B-5915955ED6D9@apple.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, Folks-
>
> I've put together a wiki page [1] that I propose to send to the AC  
> as a further clarification on the charter discussion.  How does this  
> look to you?
>
> Does everyone agree that this is fair representation of the changed  
> work in the WebApps WG charter?
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Charter

So looking at the following statements:

* Indexed Database API was an alternative proposal to Web SQL Database
* Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving was split from Indexed  
Database API

(1) Is the second statement actually true? I don't recall ever seeing  
a Working Draft or Editor's Draft of Indexed Database API that  
included the "Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving" material. As far  
as I know, the only relationship is that both proposals were made by  
the same individual.

(2) Even if both statements are independently true, I think they give  
the misleading impression that "Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving"  
is something that would have been in scope as an alternative to Web  
SQL Database, at least in part. But I don't think that's right. It's a  
totally different API, with a totally separate purpose. It is actually  
an alternative to (or possibly in the future extension on top of) the  
HTML5 Application Cache feature. I don't think it is reasonable to  
imply that this was even in part an alternative proposal to any Web  
Apps WG spec.

Actually, given (2), I am not sure it is a good idea to have this in  
our charter scope, since work in this area is currently being done by  
the HTML WG. At the very least it should be very clearly called out as  
a coordination item.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 18:33:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT