Re: Web/Native: gap analysis

On Monday, October 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> 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.

All of the above. Also making sure that *real/actual* developers get to try this stuff out early (in actual projects, so to avoid us realizing we f'ed up 2 years down the road)… work with browser vendors to make sure they put out a prototype early to play with (behind a flag!).   
>  
> > 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?


Gathering data primarily: Finding out exactly what is needed and what the platform already has (e.g., looking at usage of <link rel="icon"> in the wild). Also outlining the problem fully (in terms of lifecycle). All that can then inform any specification work.  

It might turn out we don't need any new manifest and we already have all we need in HTML (just not implemented!).   
  
> > 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.)

Sorry, to link… but this article by Boris Smus outlines the problem well (though it's a little thin on solutions):
http://smus.com/installable-webapps/

> > 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.
>

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 11:44:00 UTC