Re: streaming/push "out of scope", was Re: on API Requirements

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 02/01/2015 01:33 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 01/31/2015 05:28 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/31/2015 03:47 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2015 04:30 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>> Everyone is blown away by the size of these requirements
>>>> already.
>>>> 
>>>> A streaming protocol for streams would be a great addition
>>>> later, but trying to jam it in here will literally sink this
>>>> project.
>>>> 
>>>> Please accept this as being out of scope.
>>> 
>>> I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "out of scope".
>>> To me, in a WG, "out of scope" means "we're not even going to
>>> talk about this issue, because it's not the kind of problem our
>>> charter says we're supposed to talk about".  In general, it's
>>> up to the chairs in guiding to conversation to steer it away
>>> from things that are out of scope (in this sense) given their
>>> reading of the charter.
>>> 
>>> What I think you're saying above is that you don't think
>>> streams/push should be one of the requirements for the API.
>>> That's plausible, but maybe we can label that as "Not a
>>> requirement", instead of "out of scope"?    That is, it's up to
>>> the group to come to consensus on what the requirements for the
>>> API are, and you're arguing this should not be one.  I'm
>>> sympathetic to your argument, but I'd also be interested in 
>>> hearing whether likely vendors of this stuff think they can
>>> sell systems without streaming/push.
>>> 
>>> The alternative interpretation is that maybe you think our
>>> charter doesn't allow us to even consider this as a possible
>>> requirement, that it's out-of-scope for the group.   Like, an
>>> authentication system would surely be out-of-scope, and Harry
>>> was just arguing that WebFinger is out of scope.

*Replacing* WebFinger with an incompatible solution and putting that
incompatible solution on Rec-track is out of scope. Folks are more
than free to discuss things in the Social IG and make Interest Group
notes on whatever they want.

We have clearly defined Rec-track documents in the charter.
>> 
>> As pointed out, WebApps is already dealing with streaming and
>> push. We should simply co-ordinate around their Rec-track work
>> (which has all browser vendors involved BTW) and rather than
>> reinvent wheel.
> Could you please share with us relevant link(s)? Maybe even add it
> to the wiki: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Streaming_%26_Push
> 
> 
See here (this was emailed out before BTW):

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm

Note that, as with the WebFinger discussion, pushing out what are
expected to be normative docs like the API requires referencing other
normative documents as being done in the IETF and W3C, often in
Working Groups with the relevant expertise.

    cheers,
       harry



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUz1YLAAoJEPgwUoSfMzqczs8QAIW8ToHcP9mH5Re1Rm1exS2W
Ny6ZvDLcLofd5Nmn9qjE53NftHWlgdwgm3Wn7Jqt9RdodnbGx16VE5oIcvfKmG12
bCUpf3+I5l2ojyLCMFJGHLGb11hnd/a0LYzv2iQL/RU/dyPE2frzbV3TpZMDRHLE
+cWfHR9ESabmbCgmTSCYN5ovCwnRsJLeC+CMFk5O+9iMIP9miQpEW3UGWcvT5SBg
bBKx7yvXsAua9qBL0bAZuKXyYjZyXz/Xc+d44/qUc3IdKtGBa4kPfSLJBdOs68VX
JqaC/gCE3z4z3Nkb4XnH2i/A4Lb9eVohbe8zDjfZOOMEwfTt0D3XuHcaIcg4bYtL
J3gKcSSl9Z7guHvNQMwF0jTQ/9G2mJybwxEhc2C4asYooZ9FN7jgPnega5GVfbtk
hEqufN351Ul/LlB9FxomWBb84XoUF4ANaLqivHOSG2Xkf0XFZoRgidxLMVx/JKyG
YCdVjfdZ+fJfT9O0CKZDpgxe/eqnB+2jeTixJLyAAfkGIKNdXDz0tSPv4opYP53n
MB89CJB/GmqrXoeLYCIR3kbmIzhmaHILBUGpUVNBTbrqhvK430dRd3NJvz3qjLxP
R1oXS9xhzhrLbePn53kAg9+O2B3D0Q0SwG1Dv//hd//OkDwwFA/E6WHxrq0z+lyD
DS+ImMPUQetBiveNpoOS
=Tf/Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 10:49:00 UTC