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

Re: FileSystem API

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:08:29 -0400
Cc: Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>
Message-Id: <B413A808-6BA5-4ADC-848F-EBBB7A15B214@mozilla.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All,
> 
> 
>> 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


I don't actually think it's possible to merge the two proposals.  I'm in favor of option 5.

-- A*
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 17:09:17 UTC

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