Re: Rechartering WebApp WG

Doug, All,

On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:25 AM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:

> We are interested in comments to refine the charter before  
> submitting it
> to the Advisory Committee and W3C management for review.
> [1]

The changes from the current [Charter] look good Doug!

Some additional changes I propose, using [PubStatus] as a guide for  
some of the comments:

3.1 - a straight diff on the draft and [Charter] shows a relatively  
significant set of changes.  However, there are really just 3  
additions: Alternate Input Device Events, PostMessage +  
MessageChannel and Web Notifications. Perhaps it would be useful if  
these three additions were marked up such that these additions were  
easily identified.

3.1 - it would be convenient if all of the specs included pointers to  
their EDs (links are missing for Clipboard, DOM, File API, Progress  
Events, PostMessage/MessageChannel, Selectors L1 and L2, Web  
Notifications, XBL2, XHR L1 and L2).

3.1 - CORS is included as a 1st-level bullet and a sub-bullet of  
"Secure Cross-Domain Scriptiong". I would delete CORS' 1st-level bullet.

3.1 - Widgets specs: we have already started to remove the "Widgets  
1.0:" prefix for the spec names and this draft charter should do the  
same (e.g. change "Widgets 1.0: Updates" to "Widget Updates").

3.1 - re Widgets View Modes - there are actually two related EDs so I  
would change this to "Widgets View Mode: a media feature and API  
related to presentation mode".

3.3 - I think you can delete the "Notes:" line

4.1 - besides XHR, at least one of the widget specs (TWI) has a  
dependency on the HTML5 spec.

4.2 - re CSS WG, change the text to "To collaborate on the Selectors  
API and widget media feature specifications"

2., 3.1 and 4.2 all refer to the "Canvas Graphics API". What is this  
API and would it make sense to consolidate this info in one or two  
places in the charter?

4.2 - "Security Group?" - it's not clear what this is about. Is this  
the informal security IG (public-web-security) or the XML Security WG  
or something else?

4.2 - re the MAWG, given WebApps' history with Media related spec  
work, perhaps the text should be a bit more specific e.g "To  
integrate consistent APIs for multimedia functionality e.g. MAWG's <a  
href="">API for Media Resource  

4.3. - the Web Sockets protocol is in scope for IETF's HyBi (not  
their HTTP WG) and it should be explicitly identified. I think this  
can be addressed by using "... keep pace with the IETF's HTTP and <a  
groups' work ...".

9. Given WAF and Device API WGs closed almost two years ago, I would  
delete the "Please also see ..." sentence.

Lastly, 4 specs are listed in [PubStatus] and not included in the  
draft charter. Above I propose a way to reflect our interest in what  
[Charter] calls Media Object, but re the other three:

a. Element Traversal - it seems like this should be explicitly  
included in the charter with a caveat that no work will be done  
except errata handling if the need arises.

b. File Upload - does the group now consider this work taken over by  
the File API and File System spec or is there something here we want  
to explicitly include in the draft?

c. Window object - given the wording in 3.1 re HTML5 "split out", I  
presume it's OK for the draft to not explicitly include this spec  
since this wording would permit WebApps to take it (given an Editor,  

-Art Barstow


Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 14:35:56 UTC