- From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:08:29 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.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