TL;DR: It's worth pursuing, but chat in WICG first to get a proposal that Web Platform WG will formally take up.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:26:11 +0200, Daniel Buchner
<> wrote:

After publishing the post, Google has reached out and we’ve been discussing options for solving this – would you like those discussions to be on the ML, or >back-channeled?

Hi Daniel,

at this stage we don't have a deliverable for this work - i.e. the W3C
members haven't approved doing something like this in Web Platform working
group. Given that people repeatedly attempt to do it, I think the
conversation is worth having. Personally I think this is something the Web needs, so one day we are going to have to get it done. On both counts, I encourage you to continue the conversations… But…

Since it is currently out of scope for this group, the normal path to get
it in scope would be to discuss it within the Web Incubator Community
Group. That way we don't lose important discussion by having it all
back-chanelled in private email.

That discussion should lead to a proposal for this group - use cases,
requirements, design considerations - initial thoughts about security,
privacy, internationalisation, accessibility, consistency with other Web
APIs, performance, …), perhaps a rough outline of a spec. You would be
aiming for First Public Working Draft, not Candidate Recommendation, so
having a pile of issues and bugs isn't a problem.

If that happens the next step is to change our charter.

That is an administrative thing that takes a few weeks (largely to ensure
we get the IPR protection W3C standards can enjoy, which happens because
we spend the time to do the admin with legal processes) if there is some
broad-based support. If we are at that point, the chairs and W3C staff
will handle most of the admin, beyond asking the Working Goup if they
agree we should add this to our charter.

And then we do the github magic to make a formal W3C Web Platform Working Group draft (usually takes me ages, so I'll ask someone smarter who will take a few minutes), and we're on our way to making a W3C standard…

…after that, it's just a matter of sorting out the issues, bugs, implementation, and then we're done :)

Until we look at the things we decided not to include in the first version, so we could ship faster…


- Daniel

From: Samsung account []

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:26 AM

To: Arthur Barstow <>

Cc: Daniel Buchner <>;

Subject: Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

2015/10/15 下午11:58於 "Arthur Barstow" <>寫道:

On 10/14/15 12:33 PM, Daniel Buchner wrote:

Hey WebAppers,

Just ran into this dragon for the 1,326^th time, so thought I would do a write-up to rekindle >discussion on this important area of developer need the platform currently fails to address: We have existing APIs/specs >that get relatively close, and my first instinct would be to leverage those and extend their >capabilities to cover the broader family of use-cases highlighted
in the post.

I welcome your ideas, feedback, and commentary,

Hi Daniel,

In case you haven't done so already, perhaps the Web Platform Incubation Group's Discourse service >would be a "better" place to discuss your proposal <>?



Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex - - - Find more at

Reply via email to