- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:36:56 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3UXY-2T=mTFOJy412u3MdTzGzaboFaSrz8nx+vzQh=KQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> > wrote: > >> Given any capability on a modern computing device and a developer who >> wants to use it, what is a) the acceptable delay between when this >> capability becomes available on the web platform vs. first being available >> on a native platform, and b) the likelihood that this capability will ever >> be available on the web platform. >> >> If we're aiming at "years, not months", and "60-80%", then we're already >> successful. >> >> If we're hoping to hit "weeks, not months" and "100%", we need something >> like Tubes. >> > > I don't think we should set targets for a) and b) and hit those targets no > matter what the cost. We need to do the hard work of evaluating tradeoffs > case by case. I assume everyone agrees that when there are no hard > tradeoffs to make, of course we'd like to have nice things. > > We can have a productive discussion about how to bring APIs for > experimental hardware and software to the Web faster. Subject changed to > suit. Here's my problem statement: > > We have a set of traditional goals for the Web platform: backward > compatibility, device independence, multiple interoperable implementations, > long-term durability, coherence, ease of use, safety, etc. People > frequently release new hardware and software with new capabilities that > don't fit into existing Web APIs. Can we expose these capabilities to Web > developers with very low delay, without violating some of our existing > goals? If we can't, what tradeoffs are we willing to make? > > If this is the discussion you want to have, then I will reveal some ideas > :-). > I think that's a reasonable problem statement. There are two problems with it: 1) it makes an assumption that everyone on this forum wants very low delay and all capabilities. I don't know if that is true, though I definitely want to believe it. 2) it's not as focused as my formulation on actually setting a target for ourselves, which makes me worried we'll end up in the same loosely incoherent state we always end up. Nevertheless, I am optimistic. I would like to have this discussion and hear your ideas. :DG<
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:37:23 UTC