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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:40:11 -0800
Cc: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-id: <5FC26BA3-3FF1-4B33-8E8A-6AE352059E32@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:47 AM, 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.
> 
> 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, 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.
> 
> 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.

Technically it is a possibility to integrate extension specifications, but I don't see the need to highlight that. The main factor it depends on is whether the community contribution to AppCache/NG wants that, rather than stability level. I suggest striking this bullet.

> 
> * 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).

It seems like AppCache NG could be added to the Web Apps WG charter via the defined fast track[*], is that the plan? If so, would be good to state explicitly.

<http://www.w3.org/2012/webapps/charter/>
"Specifically, because of the close relationship of the WebApps WG and the HTML WG in terms of participants, market, and community, the WebApps WG may opt to take on a limited number of specifications which were initially part of the HTML5 specification that have been split off for more general use with other languages. Consistent with W3C process, an Advisory Committee Review will evaluate whether the additional deliverable should be added to the WebApps WG charter. The expectation is that if the review is successful, Working Group participants will not be required to re-join the Working Group."


> 
> * Will AppCache.NG be identified as a joint deliverable in both WebApps' and HTMLWG's charters? Yes.


What is the rationale for this?

It seems that both precedent and practicality would argue against a joint deliverable: Making the new AppCache spec a joint deliverable seems to make things more complicated, in that two WGs will have to approve all transitions and so forth. And on the past, work transferred from HTML WG to Web Apps WG has become a Web Apps WG sole deliverable, not a joint deliverable.

I did not get the impression that anyone was asking for the new spec to be a joint deliverable.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 16:40:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 November 2012 16:40:48 GMT