- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:19:12 +0200
- To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Rick Johnson <rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com>
- Message-Id: <93BE1390-F966-47E9-BA85-DEA63167CFA7@w3.org>
> On 11 Apr 2017, at 16:16, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 6:58 AM > To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> > Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>; W3C Publishing > Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>; Garth Conboy > <garth@google.com>; Rick Johnson <rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com> > Subject: Re: Some new issues raised on the charter > > >> On 11 Apr 2017, at 15:35, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> wrote: >> >> In EPUB 3 the lack of explicit definition of the runtime security >> model had been noted as an infelicity and IDPF folks had been >> following the work in the W3C System Applications WG [1] in particular >> the draft of Web Applications Runtime and Security Model [2], since >> there was felt to be significant overlap between security issues in >> so-called "system applications" (with client-side resources and >> potentially offline) and portable publications. However, the Systems >> Applications WG was disbanded and its specs in my understanding aren't >> proceeding, which may be a cautionary note with how much the new WG wants > to tackle in this area. >> Nevertheless, something in the proposed charter that notes more >> clearly that addressing rigorously defining the security model is in >> scope for the WG could be useful and perhaps a better way to address >> Google's concern than trying to precisely define things like origin in >> the WG charter itself (since the charter is not the place to specify > solutions). > > We have to be careful, though. The response may be (and should be, actually) > that the WG should avoid re-inventing things by itself and should reuse > whatever is being defined elsewhere on the subject. In this sense, the issue > raised in #63, ie, adding an explicit liaison to the Web App Security WG, is > indeed important. > > Do you think that this is not enough? > > Bill: I agree that adding explicit liaison to the Web App Security WG is > important and it may be sufficient. But I'm not sure whether > offline/packaged content use cases are presently in scope for the Web App > Security WG (given demise of work on "system applications") and I would not > like to have that end up a blocker for if it was deemed out of scope for our > WG to define our own security model if there is nothing to reuse. I do not think it is out of scope. We clearly say that security is to be solved; at this point I believe this is all we need… Ivan > > Ivan > > >> >> --Bill >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/ >> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/runtime/ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:56 AM >> To: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>; W3C >> Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org> >> Cc: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>; Rick Johnson >> <rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com> >> Subject: Re: Some new issues raised on the charter >> Importance: High >> >> I have re-read issue 61, and I have put in a proposal for resolution >> to that one, too. >> >> Ivan >> >>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 08:23, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> Three new issues have been raised on the charter last night (coming >>> from >> Google). We have to handle those ASAP. >>> >>> I have commented and proposed a solution for two out of three, namely >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/62 >>> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/63 >>> >>> I have not commented on >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/61 >>> >>> because I would like a security expert to answer that question. >> Unfortunately, Leonard is unavailable this week, we should try to >> settle that without him around. >>> >>> I do not think any of those issues are hugely complex, and can be >>> handled >> (I hope) with editorial changes, but they have to be treated nevertheless. >> Please, look at these. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Publishing@W3C Technical Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Publishing@W3C Technical Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 15:19:27 UTC