W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Draft: Plan and next steps for AppCache.NG

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:32:10 -0500
Message-ID: <50992D7A.5030400@nokia.com>
To: ext Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 11/6/12 10:18 AM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:
> On 11/6/12 2:47 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> * Will WebApps need a charter update to formally add AppCache? Yes (see
>> #WebApps-charter).
> Do you make a distinction between a re-charter and a charter update?

For the purposes of AC reviews, I consider them the same.

> It
> seems the current charter is designed to make taking work from the HTML WG
> a simple(r) process[1].

As Robin noted/quoted in the HTMLWG's minutes, the Charter sets an 
expectation that AC review is required although it is good that 
re-registering WG participants is not required:

Specifically, because of the close relationship of the WebApps WG and 
the HTML WG in terms of participants, market, and community, the WebApps 
WG may opt to take on a limited number of specifications which were 
initially part of the HTML5 specification that have been split off for 
more general use with other languages. Consistent with W3C process, 
anAdvisory Committee Review 
evaluate whether the additional deliverable should be added to the 
WebApps WG charter. The expectation is that if the review is successful, 
Working Group participants will not be required to re-join the Working 
Group. For any work transferred to the WebApps WG, the first draft 
published in the WebApps WG is considered the first public Working Draft 
for application of thePatent Policy exclusion rules 

BTW, another option re the scope/charter questions is that the HTMLWG is 
simply using public-webapps list for all AppCache discussions and that 
HTMLWG retains (exclusive) decision making rights e.g. publication 
decisions. I can see some +/- on this approach, including it could 
conceivably eliminate the need for WebApps to recharter ;-).

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 15:32:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:38 UTC