Re: CfC: transfer "Manifest for Web Applications" specification to WebApps WG; deadline 20th May


Given that no one objected, I would like to record the group approval
for the transfer of the specification to the WebApps working group.

Marcos, given that the WebApps WG seems to be in its way to accept the
transfer, could you move the specification there (have a new URI and
change the boilerplate) and let us know when it is done so Dave can
update the SysApps frontpage to reflect the change?


On 13/05/13 18:55, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> As discussed during the SysApps F2F in April, we tried to push the idea
> of a join task force between WebApps and SysApps to work on some topics
> like the Manifest and the Runtime specifications. During the WebApps F2F
> this proposal has been exposed to the group (thank you Jonas) and the
> conclusion was that the WebApps group isn't interested in the Runtime
> specification but is quite interested in the Manifest one. They also
> prefer to take ownership of the Manifest specification because a joint
> task force creates an overhead that participants and W3C administrators
> would prefer to avoid.
> The manifest is something that we want to push for the Web, as much in a
> browsing context than a web application runtime context and having this
> work in the WebApps working group is going to help getting traction and
> implementations. Keeping this work in SysApps will probably make the
> manifest seen as "application only" simply because most of our work is
> being done in that context.
> By transferring this specification to the WebApps working group, this
> group will accept to give the ownership of the specification to the
> WebApps working group and make any further work on this specification
> happen in this working group. If the group accept to transfer the
> specification, the final decision will still be pending on the CfC that
> will have to happen in the WebApps WG to take the ownership of it.
> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to
> this e-mail by May 20 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and
> encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal.
> Thanks,
> --
> Mounir

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:25:17 UTC