W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > January 2015

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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:47:35 -0500
Message-ID: <54CC4247.6000108@w3.org>
To: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
CC: public-socialweb@w3.org
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.

         -- Sandro

>
> Evan Prodromou
>
>> On Jan 29, 2015, at 15:00, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/29/2015 02:21 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> On 01/28/2015 06:13 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> - Can you justify most of the out-of-scope stuff?   Without streaming
>>>>> or push, I don't see how this system could catch on.
>>>> I think that server-to-server stuff is going to be more pertinent when
>>>> we discuss the federation protocol.
>>> Clients need streaming/push, too, don't they?
>> +1
>>
>> in my experiments a while ago i used HTTP + JSON based pub/sub protocol
>> Bayeux: http://svn.cometd.org/trunk/bayeux/bayeux.html
>>
>> using one of its implementations: http://faye.jcoglan.com/
>>
>> mentioned decentralized prototype with real time geolocation map layers:
>> https://github.com/dspace-ng/dspace-app-action-slim
>>
>>
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2015 02:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:14 UTC