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 11:40:55 -0700
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-id: <DB3973E3-5603-44E6-BA5A-9F3E046BC985@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


More comments:

It may be worth noting that some of the deliverables described as  
alternate proposals do not actually match the charter descriptions for  
the previous main deliverables. For example, the 2008 charter  
describes CORS thus:
"A mechanism for selective and secure cross-domain scripting (formerly  
Access Control for Cross-site Requests)."

But UMP is arguably not "selective"; it lets you limit what resources  
can be access cross-domain, but not who can access them, by design.


The 2008 charter describes Web Storage thus:
"Two APIs for client-side data storage in Web applications: a name- 
value pair system, and a database system with a SQL frontend."

But Indexed Database clearly does not really satisfy the description  
of either of those two APIs, again, by design.


I think it's better to be forthright about this. The whole reason  
these APIs exist is to differ in a fundamental way from the other  
relevant charter deliverables in a fundamental way.


I also disagree with both describing Widget Embedding as new, and then  
also describing it as split from another document. It was certainly  
not split from anything published under the 2008 charter; rather it is  
apparently based on a section heading of an empty section from a draft  
published in 2007. Since it's already listed as new, I don't think  
further explanation is needed, and would rather just see it listed as  
new without comment than to debate its historical origins. Or I would  
be fine with a note that it's based on concepts that preceded the 2008  
charter period.


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 18:41:35 GMT

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