resending to the right address. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All, > > > > On 8/19/13 7:44 PM, ext Eric U wrote: >> >> OK, I just finished making my way through the public-script-coord >> thread [I'm not on that list, but someone pointed me to it]. I have >> no official objections to you editing a spec based on Jonas's >> proposal, but I do have a couple of questions: >> >> 1) Why is this on public-script-coord instead of public-webapps? > > > I think Jonas' reply on this question covers the rationale. (I [incorrectly] > assumed everyone in WebApps is subscribed to p-s-c so I'll try to clarify > our lists' usage when people join the group.) > > >> 2) Is any vendor other than Mozilla actually interested in this >> proposal? When it was brought up on public-webapps, and at the >> WebApps F2F, it dropped with a resounding thud. >> >> Given the standardization failure of the Chrome FileSystem API, this >> could be a massive waste of time. Or it could just be a way for >> Mozilla to document its filesystem API, since we've already got >> documentation of the Chrome API, but then you don't need to drag >> public-script-coord into that. > > > These are good questions and points. I don't feel real strongly here re our > next steps other than I think we should try to get consensus on a high-level > plan to help set expectations accordingly. > > It seems we have a few options, some are not necessarily mutually exclusive > ... > > 1. Leave Eric's specs in WD state
I'm totally ok with this one. Though see more below. > 2. Move Eric's specs to LC->CR (feature set should probably be > restricted/limited to what is already implemented in Chrome); block in CR > until there are two or more implementations I don't support this one. Last time we talked about this API at a face to face all browser vendors except google explicitly said that they were not interested at implementing this API. I don't know why we didn't at the time move this spec to a Note? Does anyone remember? Does the minutes say? In any case I think moving this API forward would be sending the wrong signals to the outside world. > 3. Move Eric's specs to WG Notes and stop work (as was done with Web SQL > Database) This is my preferred action. For the same reason that we moved Web SQL to a Note. It's very hard for the outside world to know what our current thinking is as a WG other than through the status of the various drafts. We can always move this API back from Note to WD if other vendors express interest in implementing. But I think at this point this API does not have enough support to remain as a WD as far as I can tell. Do we have any other active drafts with only support from a single vendor. > 4. Merge the two proposals Like Arun, I don't think this is possible. > 5. Formally start work on Mozilla proposal knowing there is some overlap > with Eric's specs > > 6. Other options? Another option is to not start the new API as an official draft until there is public support from two vendors. But if we're going to do that I'd like to insist that we move the google API to Note status as to not signal to the outside world that we still think the google API is going to be the one that is the future of the web and has more support than the mozilla proposal. > It appears the current proposal/plan is #1 plus #5 which is effectively the > `Darwinism` plan. Is this correct? I'm ok with this option too. / Jonas
