Re: Web/Native: gap analysis

On 10/14/13 7:01 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> I think it's great that you've gone to such length to identify the issues in the platform.

Yes, indeed; good work Dom!

> we can focus on fixing high priority items over the next year - instead of trying to solve all the things at once.

Good idea.

> Thus, I would like to propose that we try to fix the following three things:
>
> 1. Offline - there is a real risk that Service Workers will not be good enough unless we get it in front of the right people early enough.

I agree this is important and I'm wondering about the best way to move 
this work forward. Are you talking about this IG providing help with the 
technical editing of the spec or more about providing UCs and 
requirements? I am also interested in where you think the current spec 
is not `good enough` and if the issues are technical, is this the right 
forum for such discussions.

> 2. Bookmarking - we need to make sure that the bits are in place so users can "install" web sites.

I see some benefits of standardization in this area. How do you envision 
this IG helping here vis-a-vis what SysApps is doing and you Manifest spec?

>    3. Permissions - without a permissioning model for the Web, we can't enable new device capabilities.

(Given quite a bit of related work over the years (widget's <access>, 
DAP, etc.) , I'm a bit skeptical here. OTOH, if people think they can 
provide some new value/inputs here, perhaps that could be a worthwhile 
effort.)

>   Pushing for the things above would go a long way in helping other WGs succeed - and keeping the platform competitive.

Yes, it feels like the Web and TV IG's work mode of providing UCs and 
requirements for WGs is indeed a good model to follow.

-AB

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 11:25:59 UTC