Re: [File System APIs] If one is good, then two must be better?

On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All,
> 
> 
> We also have this spec from Arun and Jonas:
> 
> * FileSystem API <http://w3c.github.io/filesystem-api/Overview.html>. The last update of the ED was 2-Oct-2013 and this spec has not been published as a TR.
> 
> My understanding is the only implementation of Eric's APIs is Chrome. I do not know the implementation status of Mozilla's spec. If anyone has additional information about the implementation status or plans of either effort, please let us know.
> 


The specification is being implemented in Fx with the interfaces as in the document you link to, but the current implemention in Fx is sandboxed and not exposed to web content.  We'd like to change that at some point.


> The last discussion about the relationship between these different efforts was August 2013 [Aug-2013] and prior to that, there was some discussion during the April 2013 f2f meeting [April-2013].
> 
> Ultimately, I think there is broad agreement a single API that is broadly implemented and deployed would be `best` (f.ex. reduces FUD, lightens implementation costs, lightens deployment costs, etc.). Although I would (still) like to be optimistic we can agree to converge on a single API, previous discussions about this do make me skeptical ...
> 
> Eric, Arun, Jonas - can you agree and commit to converge your efforts, f.ex. just have a single API?
> 


We can certainly commit to editing the proposal we put forward, and would like to hear from other browser vendors about their opinions.  That will inform what we should do collectively.

-- A*

Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 20:29:03 UTC