W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: FileSystem compromise spec

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:46:28 -0500
Message-ID: <50B8C6C4.6090007@nokia.com>
To: ext Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>
CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11/15/12 7:39 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
> As discussed at TPAC, there's little support for the current FileSystem API, but
> some support for a new API, and I promised to put forth a compromise proposal.
> In order to do that, I'd like to hear 1) what kinds of changes would make it
> more popular; 2) who I'm trying to convince.  There are a number of folks who
> have said that they're not interested in a FileSystem API at all, so I'd rather
> concentrate my efforts on those with skin in the game.
> So far I've been hearing:
>    * It's too complicated.  A number of the methods aren't absolutely necessary
>      if the user's willing to do a bit more work, so they should be dropped.
>    * Even for what functionality we keep, it could be simpler.
>    * The synchronous [worker-only] interface is superfluous.  It's not necessary
>      for 1.0, and it's a lot of extra implementation work.
>    * It's designed to handle both the sandbox and the
>      outside-the-sandbox use cases.  For folks interested in just the sandbox and
>      no future expansions, that seems like wasted effort, and a sandbox-only API
>      could be simpler.  It's not clear to me that there is anyone interested in
>      just the sandbox and no future expansions, but if there is, please speak up.
>      I've certainly heard from folks with the opposite goal.
> Does that sum it up?

That is a helpful summary so thanks for that.

Another at least somewhat related topic is the relationship between 
WebApps' File* specs and the file specs in scope for SysApps and Adam 
did a good job of clarifying that in 

It seems like it would be useful to look at these various file and 
database specs from a high level use case perspective (f.ex. "one way to 
address UC X is to use spec X"). If anyone is aware of some related 
docs, please let me know. Doug - wondering aloud here if this is 
something webplatform.org might cover or if you know of someone that 
might be interested in creating this type of documentation?

-Thanks, AB

> I'd like to hear from folks who are interested, but not in the current spec.
> Thanks,
> 	Eric
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 14:46:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:50 UTC