RE: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

I don't see a problem in amending the charter to make this deliverable explicit (this can also be done for app manifest).  Please propose the appropriate charter modifications and we can withdraw our objection.

-Giri

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:05 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: Mounir Lamouri; wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

Hi Giri, 

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:

> Qualcomm Innovation Center does not support moving this doc to FPWD.
> 
> This document is not listed among the deliverables in the charter (see http://www.w3.org/2012/09/sysapps-wg-charter.html). Please propose amending the charter first. If this is not deemed acceptable, then you may want to consider making this document a working group note.
> 

I completely understand your concern, but the app: URI was part of the original runtime spec already published as a FPWD at the W3C - hence, it's already been agreed by the WG that it's in scope of the Charter. See the text here: 

http://www.w3.org/TR/runtime/#uri-of-a-packaged-file


If you compare it to the new spec, you will see that the new spec just fills in all the holes: all that was done was that I expanded that section into it's own spec. I can fold all the text back into the Runtime spec, but that seems like "make work". 

What we should do is amend the charter to allow specs to be spun off where it makes sense and are in scope. This is going to happen a lot going forward as we find gaps in what is currently specified (e.g., some of the APIs in the Runtime specs might also end up being spun off - and others are being cut altogether, like DOMRequest). We are very early in the standardization process and we need flexibility to spin off or fold in bits of work as it makes sense. 

I hope that makes sense, addresses your concerns, and I can have Qualcomm's support for moving this document to it's own spec.

Kind regards,
Marcos

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 15:09:07 UTC