W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: Service Workers 1 and Nightly

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:56:19 -0400
To: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>, 'WebApps WG' <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: 'Alex Russell' <slightlyoff@google.com>, jakearchibald@google.com
Message-ID: <55FBEDD3.6080106@gmail.com>
On 9/18/15 2:22 AM, Jungkee Song wrote:
> Hi all,
> We editors are happy to announce that we make a new branch for Service
> Workers 1 today [1].
> Thanks to all the contributions, Service Workers 1 now covers the
> fundamental model and the associated APIs to support offline-first and
> background processing requirements. The features in this version include:
>   - Register/Update/Unregister of a service worker registration
>   - Handle fetch events
>   - Fetch and Cache resources
>   - Manage service worker clients
>   - Communicate between a client and a service worker
>   - Define interfaces and algorithms for extensions (Push, Notification,
> etc.)
> ([2] is the remaining issues for this version in the github issue tracker.)
> On top of the above work, the contributors are now ready to continue with
> the discussions about new features including foreign fetch [3], fetch
> event's request's client, header-based installation, kill-switch, and so
> forth. These efforts will be put in Service Workers Nightly [4] which is
> just a new name for the original ED branch.
> We are planning to publish a CR based on Service Workers 1 soon during which
> we would like to focus on stabilizing the features (bug fix) and resolving
> compatibility issues among multiple implementations.

Hi Jungkee, All,

Thanks for this update!

Regarding the publishing plan above, the latest process document 
includes an expectation that before a CR is published the spec "has 
already received wide review" [1]. Although the group is free to 
determine the wide review "requirements" (see [2]), it can be useful to 
publish a new WD and use that WD as the basis of the wide review. It 
would also be possible to use an ED (perhaps a static snapshot) as the 
basis for the review. There is also a question about which group(s) we 
explicitly want to ask to review the spec.

What are your thoughts on the document (WD vs. ED snapshot) to use as 
the review?

Which groups do we ask to review? I presume at least TAG and Web Mobile 
IG. Are there others?

-Thanks, AB

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#maturity-levels>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#wide-review>

> For editors,
> Jungkee
> [1] https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker_1/
> [2]
> https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+m
> ilestone%3A%22Version+1%22
> [3] https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/684
> [4] https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/
Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 10:56:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:57 UTC