Re: System Level APIs draft proposal

Robin,

AFAICT, Webapps will not be addressing the user experience (UX) related to security/privacy options for installable Webapps, regardless of how packaged. If there are aspects then of the UX that are necessary to define at least in terms of function if not UI, e.g. permission notices and grants and how pre-arranged trust may affect that, shouldn't that be addressed in this WG as part of an app lifecycle discussion?

This will have an impact on the design of the APIs as you note, but I also think there are general app lifecycle / UX aspects that need to be addressed as guidelines at the least.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan

On May 22, 2012, at 8:49 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> Hi Niklas,
> 
> On May 4, 2012, at 13:40 , Niklas Widell wrote:
>> On the charter, given objective to build separate environment, wouldn't it
>> make sense to also include app packaging, life-cycle (install/uninstall)
>> etc in the charter, or is this assumed proprietary or based on existing
>> standards (e.g. Widget specs)?
> 
> As others have indicated, a lot of the pieces you mention here are in scope for WebApps. But I agree with your instinct (as have others) that it makes sense for this group to have a clear understanding of the runtime it is defining since that has a direct impact on the design of the APIs. I've clarified the charter to not just add that but also push it forward. Note that in defining the runtime environment in which these APIs will live there is nothing that prevents that group from referencing existing specifications from other groups (e.g. WebApps for packaging, WebAppSec for CSP).
> 
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:11:46 UTC