Re: System Level APIs draft proposal

Hi,

I really like and support the idea of new WG and its draft charter.

Below is my take on the topics discussed in this thread:

- Separate group: Taking the OS level APIs in new group is good since DAP
can continue its current charter and no rechartering needed. Also, it is a
clean start. Agenda is big but I believe we have enough interest so we can
find editors and implementation support. F.ex, Tizen has already specs and
implementation for half of the APIs, and B2G has the other half. That is a
fairly good start.

- Browser-safe vs non-browser-safe: I like the separation of the two. We
need better names, though. What I am really looking for is the installed
apps. And only those. Not interested on the traditional web pages. So the
approach is totally different to the conventional browser & web page
model. I don't think these two different models can happily live in the
same WG, and under same security model.

-sakari

On 4/30/12 8:28 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>during our last face to face meeting it emerged that there was interest in
>there being another working group that would work on System Level APIs, of
>the kind that would be too dangerous to include in a browser but that
>would
>be useful if you wanted to build a Web-based OS, be it through
>"traditional"
>applications or with some form of browser extension system.
>
>I looked around the existing landscape and had a variety of chats with
>people who expressed interest in the topic, and put together a draft
>charter.
>
>Please note that this draft is just my personal input, it does not
>represent the consensus of anyone other than myself, is not endorsed by
>whoever, etc.
>
>    http://darobin.github.com/system-level-apis-charter/
>
>Your feedback is welcome!
>
>-- 
>Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 15:34:17 UTC