W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2017

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:08:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78hi8RAu9wwAT9vtLcy5KmFguHS86N60bJ4eL_tkrnONcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roger H├ągensen <rh_whatwg@skuldwyrm.no>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Roger H├ągensen <rh_whatwg@skuldwyrm.no> wrote:
> Searching Google for "offline webapp discussion group" turns up
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Offline_web_applications_workshop
> and that's sadly from 2011.
>
> There is https://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/

Right, those are about making applications distributed over HTTPS work
when the user is not connected. That idea doesn't necessitate file
URLs and we're still working towards that ideal with Fetch, HTML, and
Service Workers. All browsers seem on board with that general idea
too, which is great.


> Now I know that WHATWG and W3 Working Group is not the same thing,
> but if W3C thinks that offline apps are part of the web but WHATWG does not
> then that creates a huge chasm as WHATWG would then ignore all offline
> stuff.

The WHATWG collaborates with a W3C group on service workers. WHATWG
ends up being responsible for the underpinnings defined in Fetch and
HTML.


> I always assumed that WHATWG was a fast track variant of W3C. Brainstorming
> stuff, getting it tested/used in browsers then seeing what sticks to the
> wall and once things become stable the W3C will hammer it in stone. Is that
> assumption wrong?

A bit, they're more independent than that. (And we don't really
appreciate any copying that takes place. It's a lot less as of late,
but it still happens, as documented in e.g.,
https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 and
https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fork_tracking.)


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 08:08:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 April 2017 08:08:53 UTC