Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a new
working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The overhead
of creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of us.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Robin Berjon <> wrote:

> Hi James,
> thanks for bringing this forward, it is indeed a very interesting approach.
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 22:27 , James Hawkins wrote:
> > I've read through the Webapps charter, and I believe Web Intents fits the
> goals and scope of the WG.
> It does fit the goal and scope, but then most web client technology does ;)
> Where you may run into issues is that it does not fit in the deliverables
> list. Since that is what members makes their IP commitment on, a new
> deliverable of non-negligible content might require rechartering. Last time
> we did that, it wasn't very pleasant.
> Thankfully, there is already a group that was chartered with Intents (or,
> in the poetic phrasing of charters, with "an API that allows web
> applications to register themselves as handlers/providers based on data
> string identifiers and an API that enables other web applications to
> discover these handlers/providers and gain permission to interact with them"
> — but "Intents" is what that means): the Device APIs group,
> It'd save a lot on the
> bureaucracy and allow us all to just go straight to work.
> We'd certainly be happy to accept your draft input. The new DAP is meant to
> be completely flexible in how it is organised. Notably, if you prefer to
> conduct work on this spec without necessarily getting all the email from the
> rest of the group we can setup a dedicated Task Force with its own mailing
> list and chair (if there's a volunteer, otherwise I'll do it). TFs can
> decide whether they want to have telcons or not.
> --
> Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 14:04:59 UTC