W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:09:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8d+gYi9n5U7S1o0RB_ZUORdVrNw0hhPjR5aAK_UBXppcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
> > There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the
> issue here, Robin?
>
> If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that WebApps
> take over Intents. Since it isn't in WebApps's deliverables, this could
> require some process mongering which I think we can all agree is an annoying
> waste of time. As it happens however, DAP already has Intents in its
> charter, so getting to work right now rather than walking the bureaucratic
> path is a simple matter of doing the work there.
>

There's process mongering to get relevant parties to join DAP. This is not
free. If you can guarantee me that the other browsers will join DAP then
let's talk (namely MSFT who just announced a similar spec for Metro, and it
would be very important to get their input here.)


>
> I'm advocating a JFDI approach over politicking and bureaucracy. That's all
> there is to it.
>
> Put another way, I too would like there to be just one huge "Web APIs"
> group that would handle all of WebApps, DAP, Web Events, Geolocation, and a
> bunch of other groups. But we don't have that and there's opposition to the
> notion. So instead of lamenting that issue, let's just use the tools we have
> that in this case happen to be both in place and perfectly serviceable.
>
> > I don't have much of a solution for it: I've been looking at DAP as an
> incubator with a broad
> > scope and a good history of experimentation.
>
> Yeah, DAP has been very fluid in its approaches and is certainly a group in
> which this proposed spec can just hit the ground running. That's why I'm
> offering this solution over jumping through process hoops, which I really
> don't see the entertainment value in.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 17:09:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT