- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:57:29 +0200
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: ifette@google.com, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Hi Charles, On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote: > There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the issue here, Robin? If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that WebApps take over Intents. Since it isn't in WebApps's deliverables, this could require some process mongering which I think we can all agree is an annoying waste of time. As it happens however, DAP already has Intents in its charter, so getting to work right now rather than walking the bureaucratic path is a simple matter of doing the work there. I'm advocating a JFDI approach over politicking and bureaucracy. That's all there is to it. Put another way, I too would like there to be just one huge "Web APIs" group that would handle all of WebApps, DAP, Web Events, Geolocation, and a bunch of other groups. But we don't have that and there's opposition to the notion. So instead of lamenting that issue, let's just use the tools we have that in this case happen to be both in place and perfectly serviceable. > I don't have much of a solution for it: I've been looking at DAP as an incubator with a broad > scope and a good history of experimentation. Yeah, DAP has been very fluid in its approaches and is certainly a group in which this proposed spec can just hit the ground running. That's why I'm offering this solution over jumping through process hoops, which I really don't see the entertainment value in. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 15:57:57 UTC