W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: FileSystem API

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:01:01 -0400
Message-ID: <521B437D.90301@nokia.com>
To: Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>
Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All,


On 8/19/13 7:44 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
> OK, I just finished making my way through the public-script-coord
> thread [I'm not on that list, but someone pointed me to it].  I have
> no official objections to you editing a spec based on Jonas's
> proposal, but I do have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) Why is this on public-script-coord instead of public-webapps?

I think Jonas' reply on this question covers the rationale. (I 
[incorrectly] assumed everyone in WebApps is subscribed to p-s-c so I'll 
try to clarify our lists' usage when people join the group.)

> 2) Is any vendor other than Mozilla actually interested in this
> proposal?  When it was brought up on public-webapps, and at the
> WebApps F2F, it dropped with a resounding thud.
>
> Given the standardization failure of the Chrome FileSystem API, this
> could be a massive waste of time.  Or it could just be a way for
> Mozilla to document its filesystem API, since we've already got
> documentation of the Chrome API, but then you don't need to drag
> public-script-coord into that.

These are good questions and points. I don't feel real strongly here re 
our next steps other than I think we should try to get consensus on a 
high-level plan to help set expectations accordingly.

It seems we have a few options, some are not necessarily mutually 
exclusive ...

1. Leave Eric's specs in WD state

2. Move Eric's specs to LC->CR (feature set should probably be 
restricted/limited to what is already implemented in Chrome); block in 
CR until there are two or more implementations

3. Move Eric's specs to WG Notes and stop work (as was done with Web SQL 
Database)

4. Merge the two proposals

5. Formally start work on Mozilla proposal knowing there is some overlap 
with Eric's specs

6. Other options?

It appears the current proposal/plan is #1 plus #5 which is effectively 
the `Darwinism` plan. Is this correct?

-ArtB
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 12:01:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:12 UTC