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

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

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:12:48 -0500
Message-ID: <509928F0.6020902@nokia.com>
To: ext Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, 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>, www-archive@w3.org
Re the joint deliverable - I'm not a big fan of them either but an 
assumption I made is -> if AppCache.NG is embedded in someversion of 
HTML, then WebApps couldn't publish it without explicit consent of the 
HTMLWG. It seemed a bit strange that WebApps could publish a version of 
HTML so I presumed some type of joint deliverable with HTMLWG would be 
neededbut if not, that's certainly OK with me (and preferred actually).

Re the fate of AppCache.AsImplementedToday and HTML5.0, I*thought* the 
discussion last week indicated AppCache.NG could  indeed - at least in 
theory - replace AppCache.AsImplementedToday in HTML5.0. Did I get that 
wrong? (Regardless, I agree the Draft Q&As need some clarification re 
the HTML numberingand the pragmatic expectations for 
AppCache.AsImplementedToday.)

-Thanks, AB

On 11/6/12 9:22 AM, ext Chris Wilson wrote:
> 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 <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:47:32 +0100, Arthur Barstow
>     <art.barstow@nokia.com <mailto: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>
>         #HTMLWG-mins
>         <http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html#item02>
>         #WebApps-charter <http://www.w3.org/2012/webapps/charter/>
>
>         </Q&A>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office,
>     Yandex
>     chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>         Find
>     more at http://yandex.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 15:13:32 GMT

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