RE: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

>(even with the sparse definition in the spec)

Was supposed to read

"(even with the sparse definition in the charter)". My apologies.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mandyam, Giridhar [mailto:mandyam@quicinc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Robin Berjon
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Mounir Lamouri; wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: RE: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

> If you can describe how it is possible to have a Web-based Execution Model that does not feature a notion of origin — and therefore potentially a scheme — then I can understand how this may not be clearly in scope. But I really can't think of a situation in which this would not be needed.

We have a difference in understanding about the necessity of what is being proposed in this particular specification, and whether there in fact is a change in technical scope as anticipated by the charter.  I believe that Marcos is proposing something new as a replacement to file://, fs://, efs://.  Although the discussion in the F2F last week certainly helped me understand better why some people in the group feel a new URI scheme is needed, I am not convinced that existing schemes that have been used by native OS's for a long time are insufficient to meet the needs of Web OS implementations.   This spec covers new subject matter that was not anticipated by the charter IMO.

This is different from, say, splitting the manifest into its own spec.  I don't think anyone joining this group believed that defining a manifest was outside the scope of the work for runtime execution and security (even with the sparse definition in the spec).

> The alternative is to recharter this group, which will require voting by the AC and everyone on this group to re-join.  I don't really understand what that would achieve, unless it's a delaying tactic.

I would request that you assume I am acting in good faith.

-Giri
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:55 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Mounir Lamouri; wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

On 18/04/2013 17:42 , Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
>> The point of a charter is to define the scope of deliverables so that 
>> participants can estimate the breadth of the patent commitment.
>
> This feature was not defined within scope of the charter based on our 
> understanding.  This is why I was asking for it to be called out in 
> the charter.

If you can describe how it is possible to have a Web-based Execution Model that does not feature a notion of origin — and therefore potentially a scheme — then I can understand how this may not be clearly in scope. But I really can't think of a situation in which this would not be needed.

Further note that after much discussion precisely on this topic, and before the chartering of this group, the community's consensus was that a new scheme was needed for the widgets case. Barring new technical information, due diligence in reviewing the field's best practices and consensus would lead to the conclusion that a scheme would be part of the runtime.

> In order to move this forward, would it be possible to modify the 
> charter from its current form to better describe the deliverables of 
> the group?  If there is some commitment to this, we can withdraw our 
> objection.

The charter is up for renewal in October 2014. I am confident that it will strive to provide as good a description of the group's deliverables as it can.

The alternative is to recharter this group, which will require voting by the AC and everyone on this group to re-join. I don't really understand what that would achieve, unless it's a delaying tactic.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 16:28:44 UTC