Re: Proposals received

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, 2013-01-03 20:55 -0800:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>> > == Execution and Security Model ==
>> > * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/SecurityModel/RequirementsForSecurityModel.html
>> > * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/RunTime-Security/Overview.html
>> > Our charter asks that we publish a FPWD of the Execution and Security
>> > Model this quarter.  Mounir's proposal looks like a reasonable
>> > starting point for a FPWD, but there is a question in
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0000.html
>> > as to how we should coordinate with the WebApps working group.
>>
>> I think the chairs of the WebApps WG are actually limited in their
>> options by how willing the participants of the WebApps WG is to
>> implement a specification. So to a large extent you are actually
>> sitting on two chairs there since Google is likely the other
>> participant needed to get the group to accept the work.
>>
>> I don't mind if we start the discussions in the SysApps WG first and
>> bring it to the WebApps WG once it's a bit more mature and complete.
>
> I suggest it might be better to try to get agreement from everybody for the
> Execution Model and Security Model specification(s) (in whatever form) to
> remain solely within the SysApps WG, without any expectation that they ever
> be brought over to WebApps -- and that the contents of the Web Application
> Manifest Format and Management APIs be merged into whatever specification(s)
> the SysApps WG produces for the Execution and Security bits.
>
> Now that we have the SysApps WG, it's not clear to me at least what value
> there would be in continuing anything related to the Web Application
> Manifest Format and Management APIs work in the WebApps WG.
>
> The relevant language that's in the current WebApps WG charter was added
> before the SysApps WG was conceived, and it's specifically restricted to a
> spec for defining just a "packaging format and configuration format...
> that allows the use of JSON to describe Web Applications".
>
> The current "Security Requirements for System Applications" and "Runtime
> and Security Model for Web Applications" drafts clearly go beyond simply
> defining a JSON packaging format. The WebApps WG, to publish anything like
> them, would need to be rechartered -- with charter language specifically
> putting them in scope. But that language is already in the SysApps charter
> -- in the parts that outline the Execution model and Security model. And
> those parts are fundamental to the rest of the SysApps deliverables.
>
> So anyway I don't think anything would be gained by planning on moving any
> of that work over to the WebApps WG at some later point.

I would prefer to do much of the work for the runtime over in the WebApps WG.

There is a large group of browser developers there that have a lot of
knowledge and experience that is very applicable to web application
development, and thus to a web application runtime.

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 10:10:16 UTC