- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:18:18 -0500
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi, Art- Thanks for the feedback. Arthur Barstow wrote (on 2/9/10 9:34 AM): > > 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] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html > > The changes from the current [Charter] look good Doug! Thanks, happy to help. > 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. Added a paragraph describing the changes, and notated each of the new deliverables. > 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). Done. > 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. Copy/paste error... removed. > 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"). Done. > 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". Done. > 3.3 - I think you can delete the "Notes:" line Removed. > 4.1 - besides XHR, at least one of the widget specs (TWI) has a > dependency on the HTML5 spec. Added. > 4.2 - re CSS WG, change the text to "To collaborate on the Selectors API > and widget media feature specifications" Changed. > 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? Removed from 2. and 3.1. Probably won't happen anyway, but it has been split out as a separate HTML WG deliverable, so it's good to be prepared in case more upheaval happens. > 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? TLR is working on putting together a Security Interest Group, but it won't be ready in time, so I've commented this out. > 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="http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/">API for Media Resource > 1.0</a>". Done. > 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 > href="http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/hybi-charter.html">HyBi</a> > groups' work ...". Done. > 9. Given WAF and Device API WGs closed almost two years ago, I would > delete the "Please also see ..." sentence. Changed to a link to previous charter. > 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. Added back, with notes. > 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? Added a note in File API that it replaces File Upload. > 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, etc.). That was the previous suggestion, so I removed it. I would be happy to add it back if we had an editor who will follow through on it, but those are scarce. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 14:18:21 UTC