Re: State of SysApps specs

On 2015-04-01 12:24, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Wayne Carr 
> <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com <mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     * Service Worker related - possible move to Web Apps or CG? *
>
>     6. Task Scheduler API <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/web-alarms/>
>     Published as TR: Yes
>     Last Editor's update: 13 October 2014
>     Editors: Mahesh Kulkarni, Samsung Electronics; Former Editors: Christophe Dumez, representing Intel and Samsung Electronics (Until January 2013 and mid-August 2014, respectively)
>     Possible Move: possible extension to Service Workers in WebApps WG
>     Interest: Intel maybe, if it moved to Web Apps or a CG - just starting to consider
>     Notes: This would let a Service Worker be awakened at a particular time and would have an event delivered to it. As Service Workers become more capable this could be useful, which sounds in the Web Apps scope for Service Workers.  Likely should move there or if they won't have it, a CG to at least preserve it until it becomes interesting to WebApps.
>
> This looks very related to 
> https://github.com/slightlyoff/BackgroundSync. There's debate about 
> how to do precise alarms (because of concerns that they tend to waste 
> battery), but they might wind up in either BackgroundSync or 
> Notifications.
>
That looks better.  So probably no reason to find a new home for Task 
Scheduler or to relicense it so someone can continue it elsewhere (like 
a CG).

There was a lot of discussion of TCP UDP on several WG lists.  That one 
looks like if it was continued somewhere, that it would need to be in a 
CG to figure some things out and to get implementers interested.  That 
one looks like it should have a CfC to see if the participants of 
SysApps would object to it being worked on outside of W3C WGs (like a CG).