- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:58:49 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: ifette@google.com, Cristiano Sumariva <sumariva@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Jun 2, 2010, at 22:14 , Jonas Sicking wrote: > It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps > would make much more sense... It's certainly a discussion that we can look into, but before we try to re-engineer everything I'd like to ask a stupid question: did the OP not find File Writer because it is "owned" by DAP and not WebApps, or simply because we've split writing off from reading, which no other FS-related API in the world does? Most of the rest of the tech world doesn't care which WG does what. In fact, most don't know that there exist such things as WebApps or DAP. The proportion of people who think it's just "W3C" doing "HTML5" is likely very, very large. And I'm not convinced that that is necessarily a problem (I certainly find it to be much, much less of a problem than people chanting that "W3C got it wrong" but who've never showed up to send in a comment). So, should we choose to address the stated issue (which I'm not entirely convinced exists, but let's assume it does) which would be best? • To jump through all the hoops of rechartering two WGs? • To place a link on each document to the others? • To put the same links on the WGs' wikis and home pages? • To make public-webapps the official discussion venue for File *? • Several of the above? I'd be curious to hear from those who most feel that this is a problem to know if the simpler option(s) might not be better than the heavier one(s). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:59:19 UTC