- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:17:22 -0800
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-id: <F040D670-88BB-40C6-B62F-295819935D96@apple.com>
Hi Art, On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Thanks for the clarifications Maciej. I don't have any objections to > WebApps taking on this work. > > However, since this functionality is not within the scope of > WebApps' current Charter [Charter], if we do have consensus within > the WG that it should be added (and I can start a CfC to determine > this), we can propose it be added to WebApps' Charter when the > current Charter is renewed (current Charter expires 30-June-2009). I > think the overhead of re-Chartering now for just this one > deliverable is too high. I assume you meant 30-June-2010. I agree that an extra recharter before those 6 months are up isn't worth it, if it is indeed necessary. However, I believe that this spec actually is within our charter. Overall, Section 2 of the charter, Scope, states: "The scope of the Web Applications Working Group covers the technologies related to developing client-side applications on the Web, including both markup vocabularies for describing and controlling client-side application behavior and programming interfaces for client-side development." This spec is pretty clearly a "programming interface for client-side development". It is true that the charter gives some specific examples, but I do not believe they are intended to be exhaustive and do not cover all deliverables. It is true that Section 3.1 of the charter, Recommendation-Track Deliverables, does not expicitly list this spec. However, I believe that set of deliverables is meant to be a minimum, not a maximum. Right after the list, it says "For a detailed summary of the current list of deliverables, and an up-to-date timeline, see the WebApps WG Deliverables," implying that we may change our specific list of deliverables. Indeed, we have added deliverables such as WebSimpleDB, DataCache, Selectors 2 and UMP that are not explicitly listed in the charter. In addition, a subsection of 3.1, Other Specifications, states: "Therefore, in addition to the specifications already in draft status, the Web Applications Working Group may take on additional specifications necessary to enable the creation of Web applications to meet the needs of the market as it evolves... Additional WebApps WG specifications may arise initially from work begun in other Working Groups, such as the HTML Working Group or the SVG Working Group; they may also be identified by new submissions from Members, or by market research." And finally, postMessage + MessageChannel comprise an API for cross- domain access that is complementary to CORS. Our charter specifically states: "Specific deliverables that the WebApps WG may consider when resources become available include: An API for cross-domain access, related to or complementary to CORS". Thus, by my reading of the charter, the newly proposed draft ("Web Messaging" perhaps?) is squarely within our chartered scope. It is a programming interface for client-side development. It is an additional specification to enable creation of Web applications to meet the needs of the market as it evolves, that arises from work begun in the HTML Working Group. It is an API for cross-domain access complementary to CORS. It's hard to see how it could be more in scope without being explicitly listed, which does not seem to be a requirement. > > In the meantime, the new spec can be added to CVS and the group can > work on an Editor's Draft but WebApps can't formally publish the > spec until the spec is part of WebApps' Charter. If proponents want > to formally publish it earlier, the HTML WG can publish it. > > Is the above a reasonable way forward? Seems ok if the work is really out of charter, but see my comments above for why I believe it is in scope. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 21:17:56 UTC