[w3ctag/design-reviews] Incubation: Application Capability (Issue #1255)

csarven created an issue (w3ctag/design-reviews#1255)

### Explainer

https://dokieli.github.io/application-capability/

### The explainer

- [x] Includes the information requested by the [Explainer Explainer](https://w3ctag.github.io/explainer-explainer/#introduction).
- [x] Follows the [Web Platform Design Principles](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/).
- [x] Includes or links to answers to the [Security/Privacy Questionnaire](https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/).
- [ ] Describes user research you did to validate the problem and/or design.

### Where and by whom is the work is being done?

- GitHub repo: https://github.com/dokieli/application-capability
- Primary contacts:
  - Sarven Capadisli (@csarven), dokieli, editor
  - Virginia Balseiro (@VirginiaBalseiro), dokieli, editor
- Organization/project driving the design: dokieli
- This work is being funded by: Not funded
- Incubation and standards groups that have discussed the design:
  - [W3C Solid Community Group](https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/solid/)
- Standards group(s) that you expect to discuss and/or adopt this work when
  it's ready: unknown

### Feedback so far

- Multi-stakeholder feedback:
  - Chromium comments: N/A (not requested; see note below)
  - Mozilla comments: N/A (not requested; see note below)
  - WebKit comments: N/A (not requested; see note below)
  - Developer and implementer feedback:
    - [dokieli](https://dokie.li/) implements features across the specification.
    - An independent [Application Capability validator](https://ac-validator.vercel.app/) checks descriptions against a SHACL shape for the vocabulary.
    - Discussion with the [PodOS](https://browser.pod-os.org/) project on application discovery and invocation: https://github.com/pod-os/PodOS/issues/47
  - Note: the specification requires no browser engine changes. Discovery is     dereferencing a description, and invocation is ordinary navigation to an IRI, so we have not requested engine vendor positions. We'd still welcome their review, particularly from those working on agent and application interoperability (for example WebMCP, see also https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1238 ).
    - Initially presented the specification to the [Solid CG](https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/solid/) as a [work item proposal](https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/806) ([minutes](https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-07-15.md#proposal-for-application-capability-spec), [mailing list](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2026Jul/0002.html))
- Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design:
  - Venue: which existing or new standards group should further develop this specification (the question we are asking the TAG).
  - The JSON-LD context and vocabulary are included in the specification until published at their own namespace.
  - Under consideration: declaring whether an action has side effects (with guidance for Consumers acting autonomously), and describing capabilities of applications beyond the web, such as PWA and desktop applications.
  - Would like to: do user research =)

### You should also know that...

*TAG hat off =)*

Appreciate your time and consideration on this work.

---

@marcoscaceres recommended that we create this design review request.

Please note that [the Explainer](https://dokieli.github.io/application-capability/#explainer) is a section in the specification.

From the TAG, we would like direction on venue. In which existing standards
group, or under what new group, should this specification be further developed? And, needless to say, any other "direction" would be great.

<!-- Content below this is maintained by @w3c-tag-bot -->
---

Track conversations at https://tag-github-bot.w3.org/gh/w3ctag/design-reviews/1255


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1255
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1255@github.com>