W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Draft: Plan and next steps for AppCache.NG

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 06:22:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqXfg8rOqcBcdAt7wscMXOdFm45v-VsrkuNRHWTjQS-j7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, www-archive@w3.org
I'm also not quite as clear that we need a joint deliverable - although I
understand the reasoning, anything that increases the number of potential
masters/peanut gallery seems like a detracting factor.  I'd prefer to make
it a clear deliverable of one group - and don't have a strong take on which
group it should be.  Chaals' questions nailed it, for me - if there's
someone who can't join one group or another, but we want to have involved,
that would guide the decision.

I do think that the current appcache spec should stay in HTML5, regardless
- it's broadly implemented, and useful for a particular (sub)set of
scenarios today.  I don't know if I'm completely convinced that what is
needed is a whole new next-gen appcache API, or targeted changes to the
current API; but either way, the current API is a reality.


On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:47:32 +0100, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi All - I've been thinking about "who is going to do what and when?" re
>> AppCache.NG, and below is a series of related Q&As.
>>
>
> They look good to me (modulo the joint deliverable idea). In particular, I
> agree that I was optimistic in saying we could take this under the existing
> charter. I infer an action item for me to draft a new webapps charter
> proposal.
>
>
>  As I worked through a plan and next steps, I started to think that since
>> it could be unwise or even potentially harmful to extract AppCache from
>> HTML5,
>>
>
> Maybe... Certainly, for all its faults, appcache is widely implemented so
> the existing spec should stay *somewhere* - if it gets pulled, it probably
> makes a good NOTE if we're not going to directly build on top of it.
>
>
>  I concluded it may be best to make AppCache.NG a joint deliverable
>> between WebApps and HTMLWG. As such, my Q&As reflect a joint deliverable
>> for AppCache.NG.
>>
>
> I don't understand why. Frankly I don't care - there is some overhead in
> coordination but not much, and it seems likely that people in HTML are
> interested in Appcache. I don't share the opinion of some that HTML is not
> a group where you can do work. The question for me comes down to:
> 1. Is there someone in HTML who is not in Webapps, won't join it, and is
> important to the discussion? And more importantly
> 2. Where does whoever does the actual work here do it?
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>
>  Please let me know your thoughts on these points, especially the
>> relationship between these two groups for AppCache.NG.
>>
>> -Thanks, AB
>>
>> P.S. I didn't cross-post this to the CG or the two WGs since this is
>> basically a strawman proposal to see if "I heard what you heard" last week.
>> However, if you want to forward this to any of those lists, that's fine
>> with me.
>>
>>
>> <Q&A>
>>
>> * What is the status of AppCache for the HTMLWG's HTML5.REC-track spec?
>> AppCache will be marked as a Feature At Risk in HTML5.REC-track.
>>
>> * Where will work on UCs and Requirements for AppCache.NG be done? UCs
>> and Reqs work for AppCache.NG will be lead by the Fixing AppCache CG using
>> their public-fixing-appcache list. We expect that work to be direct input
>> into the specification of AppCache.NG.
>>
>> * Currently, are there any concrete proposal(s) for the AppCache.NG spec?
>> No, although Jonas Sicking indicated he will make a proposal.
>>
>> * Which WG will lead the specification of AppCache.NG? WebApps (see
>> #WebApps-mins and #HTMLWG-mins).
>>
>> * Which e-mail list will be used for technical discussion about the
>> AppCache.NG spec? public-webapps (Subject: prefix [appcache]).
>>
>> * Will the AppCache.NG spec be included in HTML5.REC-track or in a
>> standalone Extension spec? This depends on a number of factors including
>> when AppCache.NG is stable, its level of implementation, its level of
>> interoperability, etc.
>>
>> * Which WG will publish AppCache.NG? WebApps & HTMLWG will jointly
>> publish AppCache.NG since it will be a joint deliverable between the two
>> groups.
>>
>> * Will WebApps need a charter update to formally add AppCache? Yes (see
>> #WebApps-charter).
>>
>> * Will AppCache.NG be identified as a joint deliverable in both WebApps'
>> and HTMLWG's charters? Yes.
>>
>> #WebApps-mins <http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-**webapps-minutes.html#item06<http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webapps-minutes.html#item06>
>> >
>> #HTMLWG-mins <http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-**html-wg-minutes.html#item02<http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html#item02>
>> >
>> #WebApps-charter <http://www.w3.org/2012/**webapps/charter/<http://www.w3.org/2012/webapps/charter/>
>> >
>>
>> </Q&A>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:23:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:59 GMT