WebApps and SysApps Boundaries [Was: Re: Proposals received]

Hi Adam, Wonsuk, All,

 > From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
 > Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 11:47:33 -0800

 > It sounds like the next step here is for Wonsuk and me to talk with
 > the WebApps chairs to make sure we're not going to step on their toes
 > by issuing a call for consensus to publish Mounir's proposal as a
 > FPWD.


Speaking as a WebApps Chair, I agree with Mike's opinion (as expressed 
in [1]) that SysApps should use its own list(s) for all of its specs and 
none of WebApps' lists should be used. I would even take it a bit 
further and recommend the groups' four Chairs enforce that separation 
(after all, WG charters include scope for good reasons including 
localizing IP concerns for Members).

One possible exception is the application packaging format. WebApps does 
indeed have a related deliverable but as Mike noted, the scope of that 
spec is very narrow [3]. Based on a quick scan of Mounir's proposal [2], 
it appears SysApps' manifest spec today is intertwined with a lot of 
other features besides a packaging format (e.g. application management, 
application life cycle, updates, permissions, etc.). As such, I think 
the scope of the current spec is too broad for joint work with WebApps. 
However, if SysApps' packaging format was spit off to a separate more 
narrow spec that is closely aligned with WebApps' deliverable, it could 
make sense for the two groups to collaborate on that one feature.

I haven't talked to Chaals about this thread so I don't know his position.

-Regards, AB

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0020.html>
[2] 
<http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/RunTime-Security/Overview.html>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/2012/webapps/charter/>

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 15:37:29 UTC