With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a new working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The overhead of creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of us.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > thanks for bringing this forward, it is indeed a very interesting approach. > > On Sep 19, 2011, at 22:27 , James Hawkins wrote: > > I've read through the Webapps charter, and I believe Web Intents fits the > goals and scope of the WG. > > It does fit the goal and scope, but then most web client technology does ;) > Where you may run into issues is that it does not fit in the deliverables > list. Since that is what members makes their IP commitment on, a new > deliverable of non-negligible content might require rechartering. Last time > we did that, it wasn't very pleasant. > > Thankfully, there is already a group that was chartered with Intents (or, > in the poetic phrasing of charters, with "an API that allows web > applications to register themselves as handlers/providers based on data > string identifiers and an API that enables other web applications to > discover these handlers/providers and gain permission to interact with them" > — but "Intents" is what that means): the Device APIs group, > http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter. It'd save a lot on the > bureaucracy and allow us all to just go straight to work. > > We'd certainly be happy to accept your draft input. The new DAP is meant to > be completely flexible in how it is organised. Notably, if you prefer to > conduct work on this spec without necessarily getting all the email from the > rest of the group we can setup a dedicated Task Force with its own mailing > list and chair (if there's a volunteer, otherwise I'll do it). TFs can > decide whether they want to have telcons or not. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > > >
