On Jul 4, 2009, at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:03:48 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
We are "potentially interested" - i.e. we want to see how the spec
comes out first. Given that this is in the scope of existing
deliverables, and given taht Oracle are providing the resources to
edit it, I see no reason to simply stand in their way.
I think a B-Tree style storage API would clearly be in scope of
existing deliverables. However, it's not clear to me that Oracles's
other proposals (programmable http cache, request interception)
are. As I understand it, those technologies don't really relate to
storage, or even networking as such, but are meant to serve a role
similar to HTML5's Application Cache feature. Also, Nikunj's
request was to add these things to the charter, from which I
infered the charter doesn't already obviously cover them.
I disagree that neither relate to storage or networking. Oracle's
proposals are about offline storage - programmable http cache is
clearly offline storage and request interception is about offline
processing and both involve networking. This is why we brought the
proposal to Web Apps WG. I have explained why programmable http cache
is different from HTML5 ApplicationCache [1].
As I noted in my earlier message to Nikunj, as far as we (chairs,
staff contacts and domain lead) can see the features *do* relate to
storage, and are in scope of the charter as is.
So it's OK, you don't need to worry about the charter changing.
It is good to know that the charter is based on scope rather than
deliverables because, otherwise, every new proposal (even as an
alternative approach) would need a charter change. Thanks for
clarifying this.
On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:06:21 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and
programmable http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide
resources for editing and reviewing proposals for all three
deliverables.
We already have a broad charter and quite a few deliverables.
Before we add more to the charter, I'd like to understand the
degree of interest in request interception and programmable http
cache. Is anyone besides Oracle interested in pursuing this
technology? Are any implementors interested in implementing it?
We are "potentially interested" - i.e. we want to see how the spec
comes out first.
On Jul 4, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It's hard for me to evaluate Apple's interest in these technologies
without seeing a concrete proposal for these features, so I
definitely don't object to a draft.
Although Oracle proposal on request interception and programmable http
cache (doesn't include B-tree) was made public and distributed on this
ML in April [2], it has not been made in to a formal member
submission. I would understand if you are waiting for that to happen,
but you can already see how concrete the proposal is. I appreciate
your patience for the member submission to happen since that is a long
winded process.
I have received several public requests for HTTP interception in
Mozilla Firefox [3]. This may not be a scientific exercise, but serves
to indicate public interest beyond Oracle. Given that every browser
has long offered a proprietary way to do request interception, it may
be appropriate to consider offering a standardized way of doing so.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0358.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0341.html
[3]
http://o-micron.blogspot.com/2009/02/overriding-default-http-behavior-in.html#comments
