Re: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

Hi Robin, Giri,  
Can we please cool it? Giri has agreed to help me work on the app:// URI spec by reviewing the work and filing bugs.  

I think Giri used the word "objection" because I originally asked "if there are no objections" to publishing - so I think it was my fault that he felt he needed to raise and objection to get a clarification.   

Anyway, I think we are good to proceed forward!  

Kind regards,
Marcos  


On Friday, April 19, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> On 18/04/2013 18:26 , Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> > > 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.
>  
>  
>  
> I think that you may be under that impression because you are missing  
> some history, and perhaps did not fully investigate the field during  
> charter review. The debate about whether a packaged runtime requires a  
> new scheme has been done to death. WebApps went through all the very  
> last details of it, even going multiple rounds with the TAG and IANA on  
> this. Barring new technical information, I think that debate is settled,  
> dead, and buried.
>  
> > > 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.
>  
> If I didn't believe there to be a chance you are acting in good faith, I  
> wouldn't bother arguing with you and would simply recommend that the  
> objection be ignored.
>  
> I do, however, have to understand what you are trying to achieve with  
> your objection if it is to be addressed. And in plain and simple  
> honesty, I fail to see what else could come of it other than using up  
> time. Would you care to enlighten me?
>  
> --  
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

--  
Marcos Caceres

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 09:18:27 UTC