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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:06:47 +0200
Cc: "James Hawkins" <jhawkins@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
To: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>
Message-ID: <op.v2dgdlfqwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:04:29 +0200, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
<ifette@google.com> wrote:

> With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a  
> new working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The  
> overhead of creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to
> many of us.

Agreed - but at the same time if people start doing work that others are
doing in another group, so they can do it with different people, we are
all doomed. It is generally not a helpful way to get to a common standard.

There is a group where the work you're interested in was already agreed as
a deliverable. Which to some extent suggests this isn't a new API, it's
Yet another API for doing something people knew they wanted to do.

Reading this discussion and understanding the issue multiplied out over
the people who effectively have to follow the discussion seems far more
process overhead than you and MS just joining that group. Even if MS
doesn't join, they can (and with all the rest of webapps will be invited
to) comment and make an IPR commitment. And as noted, discussing on the
same list doesn't guarantee attention from the other subscribers anyway.

We are unlikely to stop you holding discussion here, but it would appear
that it makes more sense to do it in a group which is already chartered to
produce the deliverable.

So with all due respect, I suggest that joining DAP and doing the work is
an efficient way forward, while carrying on a process discussion here is
sidetracking a lot of people whose time could otherwise be spent making
technical progress on something.

Part of the value of W3C standards, as compared to random spec proposals
 from a vendor or three, comes from a process that gives many kinds of
stakeholders confidence in what that means. Chartering a group with a
reasonable scope definition and then doing that work there is part of the
way that process works. You could always ask Google's W3C Advisory
Committee representative T V Raman to raise the process discussion to the
AC forum, where it is directly in scope. The point of this group, DAP, and
other WGs is to focus on doing their chartered technical work.

cheers

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> thanks for bringing this forward, it is indeed a very interesting  
>> approach.
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2011, at 22:27 , James Hawkins wrote:
>> > I've read through the Webapps charter, and I believe Web Intents fits  
>> the
>> goals and scope of the WG.
>>
>> It does fit the goal and scope, but then most web client technology  
>> does ;)
>> Where you may run into issues is that it does not fit in the  
>> deliverables
>> list. Since that is what members makes their IP commitment on, a new
>> deliverable of non-negligible content might require rechartering. Last  
>> time
>> we did that, it wasn't very pleasant.
>>
>> Thankfully, there is already a group that was chartered with Intents  
>> (or,
>> in the poetic phrasing of charters, with "an API that allows web
>> applications to register themselves as handlers/providers based on data
>> string identifiers and an API that enables other web applications to
>> discover these handlers/providers and gain permission to interact with  
>> them"
>> — but "Intents" is what that means): the Device APIs group,
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter. It'd save a lot on the
>> bureaucracy and allow us all to just go straight to work.
>>
>> We'd certainly be happy to accept your draft input. The new DAP is  
>> meant to
>> be completely flexible in how it is organised. Notably, if you prefer to
>> conduct work on this spec without necessarily getting all the email  
>> from the
>> rest of the group we can setup a dedicated Task Force with its own  
>> mailing
>> list and chair (if there's a volunteer, otherwise I'll do it). TFs can
>> decide whether they want to have telcons or not.
>>
>> --
>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
       je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Sunday, 25 September 2011 16:07:18 GMT

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