Re: Points of order on this WG

On Jul 4, 2009, at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:03:48 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak  
> <> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>> We are "potentially interested" - i.e. we want to see how the spec  
>>> comes out first. Given that this is in the scope of existing  
>>> deliverables, and given taht Oracle are providing the resources to  
>>> edit it, I see no reason to simply stand in their way.
>> I think a B-Tree style storage API would clearly be in scope of  
>> existing deliverables. However, it's not clear to me that Oracles's  
>> other proposals (programmable http cache, request interception)  
>> are. As I understand it, those technologies don't really relate to  
>> storage, or even networking as such, but are meant to serve a role  
>> similar to HTML5's Application Cache feature. Also, Nikunj's  
>> request was to add these things to the charter, from which I  
>> infered the charter doesn't already obviously cover them.

I disagree that neither relate to storage or networking. Oracle's  
proposals are about offline storage - programmable http cache is  
clearly offline storage and request interception is about offline  
processing and both involve networking. This is why we brought the  
proposal to Web Apps WG. I have explained why programmable http cache  
is different from HTML5 ApplicationCache [1].

> As I noted in my earlier message to Nikunj, as far as we (chairs,  
> staff contacts and domain lead) can see the features *do* relate to  
> storage, and are in scope of the charter as is.
> So it's OK, you don't need to worry about the charter changing.

It is good to know that the charter is based on scope rather than  
deliverables because, otherwise, every new proposal (even as an  
alternative approach) would need a charter change. Thanks for  
clarifying this.

On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:06:21 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak  
> <> wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
>>> Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and  
>>> programmable http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide  
>>> resources for editing and reviewing proposals for all three  
>>> deliverables.
>> We already have a broad charter and quite a few deliverables.  
>> Before we add more to the charter, I'd like to understand the  
>> degree of interest in request interception and programmable http  
>> cache. Is anyone besides Oracle interested in pursuing this  
>> technology? Are any implementors interested in implementing it?
> We are "potentially interested" - i.e. we want to see how the spec  
> comes out first.

On Jul 4, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> It's hard for me to evaluate Apple's interest in these technologies  
> without seeing a concrete proposal for these features, so I  
> definitely don't object to a draft.

Although Oracle proposal on request interception and programmable http  
cache (doesn't include B-tree) was made public and distributed on this  
ML in April [2], it has not been made in to a formal member  
submission. I would understand if you are waiting for that to happen,  
but you can already see how concrete the proposal is. I appreciate  
your patience for the member submission to happen since that is a long  
winded process.

I have received several public requests for HTTP interception in  
Mozilla Firefox [3]. This may not be a scientific exercise, but serves  
to indicate public interest beyond Oracle. Given that every browser  
has long offered a proprietary way to do request interception, it may  
be appropriate to consider offering a standardized way of doing so.



Received on Saturday, 4 July 2009 15:12:32 UTC