W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:27:09 +0100
Cc: ext Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, public-native-web-apps@w3.org
Message-Id: <15CD5C15-22C4-49B0-9C58-B0B26BD5B603@gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On 6 Jun 2012, at 01:10, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 5/30/12 2:36 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> What are people's thoughts on whether or not the Quota Management API spec is ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD)?
> 
> (Ooops, c&p error above: s/Quota Management/Webapp Manifest/)
> 
>> A "rule of thumb" for FPWD is that the ED's scope should cover most of the expected functionality although the depth of some functionality may be very shallow, and it is OK if the ED has some open bugs/issues.
> 
> In addition to the above, one of the side effects of the publication of a FPWD is that it starts the spec's first Call for (patent) Exclusions (see [CfE] for details). Consequently, the FPWD should contain enough information regarding its scope to facilitate a patent search.
> 
> I mention this because Adam (and others) raised concerns the ED "makes some implicit assumptions about the security model". I don't think that concern is necessarily a showstopper for the FPWD. However, such comments indicate to me the spec's scope isn't quite fleshed out yet, at least regarding security considerations. It would be useful for the ED to be more explicit about the concerns that have raised. For example, the ED could contain some type of Issue block and point to this thread.
> 
> I don't recall the group discussing the UCs and requirements the spec addresses. Perhaps it would also be useful to step back a bit and try to get agreement on some high level requirements before proceeding. (Marcos' requirements document for widgets could provide some useful info [Widget-Reqs].)
> 
> WDYT?

Having looked again at this, I think the easiest approach would not be to publish WebApp Manifest as is, but simply to publish a new draft of the Widget Interface[1] and do a search/replace on "widget" with "webapp". We can then add a section on JSON serialization as a manifest media type, and then take each of the proposed model extensions from Mozilla on their own merit.

For compatibility with existing Widgets implementations, all you then need is:

window.webapp = window.widget (or vice versa)

> 
> -AB
> 
> [CfE] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion
> [Widget-Reqs] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
> 
> 
> 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-apis/
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 08:27:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT