W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Draft recharter proposal

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:26:57 +0200
To: "Webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Olli Pettay" <olli@pettay.fi>
Message-ID: <op.ylfm672hs7agh9@widsith.local>
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:29:44 +0200, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi> wrote:

> On 07/29/2016 06:13 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> our charter expires at the end of September. I've produced a draft  
>> version of a new charter, for people to comment on:
>> http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/group-charter.html
>> Feel free to raise comments as issues:  
>> https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/new
>> As per the change section:
>> New deliverables:
>> Microdata
>> Removed as deliverables:
>> Streams; URL; XHR1
>> Marked as deliverables to be taken up if incubation suggests likely  
>> success:
>> Background Synchronisation; Filesystem API; FindText API; HTML Import;  
>> Input Methods; Packaging; Quota API
> Given what has been happening with directory upload stuff recently,  
> Filesystem stuff is a bit controversial.
> (Gecko and Edge implementing https://wicg.github.io/entries-api/, or  
> something quite similar. The draft doesn't quite follow browsers.
>   Entries API is a subset of what Blink has been shipping.)
> But I think some way better API than the old Chrome-only API should be  
> implemented for Filesystem in general, and at that point also
> better stuff for directory upload, *and* for directory download.
> I'd consider the callback based, awkward to use Blink API a legacy thing.

Filesystem is a bit controversial - there have been a number of proposals  
over most of a decade now. The idea is that if we have one that matches  
something browsers do and want to continue with, and we maintain it, that  
would be a helpful thing to do.

> I thought it is pretty much agreed that HTML Import is deprecated, or  
> something to not to do now.

At any rate, I believe there is not enough apparent interest to rate it as  
a definite work item.

Both of those are in a section of things the group *may* do, if there is  
reason to expect success, but I think that could be made much clearer in  
the document.

>> Microdata has very wide ongoing usage, and it would be helpful to have  
>> something clearer than the current W3C Note - which includes things  
>> that don't
>> work - for people to refer to. So I'm proposing to do the editing,  
>> along with Dan Brickley from Google, and to work roughly on the basis  
>> we use in
>> HTML of specifying what actually works, rather than adding in what we  
>> would like.
> So the only implementation of HTML Microdata API in browsers was removed  
> recently
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=909633 because exposing the  
> API caused web pages to break.

Yes, removing the API from the spec is one of the things we expect to do.  
Browsers generally do nothing with microdata as far as I know, which is  
fine. It's not particularly directed at them anyway. It's used by search  
engines, and put into massive numbers of web sites for that purpose.

cheers, and thanks for the comments.


Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Saturday, 30 July 2016 21:27:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:15:03 UTC