W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Fullscreen API

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:12:48 -0800
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1AA03752-43F6-49DC-A99A-EFE29E27C244@apple.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, Simon, Maciej-
> Simon Fraser wrote (on 2/8/11 2:18 PM):
>> I agree that CSS or SVG don't seem like the right places for the
>> fullscreen API. There are some other more script-driven APIs that fall
>> into the same boat, like the animation proposal:
>> <http://webstuff.nfshost.com/anim-timing/Overview.html>.
>> Web Apps seems most appropriate to me.
> I've explained already the difficulties of adding them to WebApps WG. We've all seen how time-consuming and painful it is to recharter.
> If we have the right stakeholder in the FX TF (which we seem to), what is your specific concern about doing them here?  You are speaking about impressions, but facts would be more useful in coming to a decision.

You seem to agree that it probably belongs in WebApps, but that it would be frustrating to make that happen because it isn't in the charter. So you suggest FX, for which is doesn't seem to fit, other than that group may have the right set of people (I assume simply because CSS + SVG gives you many browser vendors), and that a task force has a more liberal approach to charters.

It seems the answer is to simply create a task force or working group with a completely open-ended charter, so that it can do whatever it wants. I'm obviously joking.

I think if you want the API to be taken seriously it should be in the group where it is most appropriate. Not the group where it is most convenient.

(I partly wonder if the whole WG approach is too heavyweight since they cover multiple specifications. Why not have a WG per specification? That would allow people to make the IP commitment on a much finer grain. I guess that is what Incubator Groups are for, so why isn't this an incubator if you're worried about charters?)

Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 20:14:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:37 UTC