Re: TPAC agenda - APIs
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:45:17 +0100, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) bs3...@att.com wrote: Hi Charles, I have an agenda item for the AOB section or wherever it can fit. I will be spending most of the time with DAP and part with Webapps (Widgets), but will try to balance the agendas to be in the APIs meeting as much as possible. The basic question I have is what is the relationship of the following specs to the HTML5 package (being normatively referenced by HTML5). Is it expected that they will reach LCWD stage along with HTML5? ... Thisis effectively in a future plans session (the final session of the meeting). But it is expected that most of them will reach last call quite soon - for a couple of them the editor already thinks they are ready (but we will put it to the group first...). - Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) - Server-Sent Events - Web Sockets - Web Workers The database (or offline storeage or whatever you want to call it) specs will be discussed as a block in the existing agenda. These are not normatively referenced by HTML5: - Web Database - WebSimpleDB API There does not seem to be a lot of discussion on some of these specs, although there are periodic updates. Is there expected to be a period of more active group discussion prior to LCWD for those that have been moving along more quietly? Presumably. There will in any case be a call for consensus before that happens - which is a trigger to start discussion if you think it is warranted. (I can't force the group to discuss things - that's up to the individual members of the group). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: TPAC agenda - APIs
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:11:23 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 4:09 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: there is a proposed timeline at http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009APIs#Agenda_Items ... I am extremely interested in the CORS discussion, and I feel I can provide helpful input in this discussion. But I have a prior commitment with the other HTML WG co-chairs from 11-12 on Tesday. I would appreciate if that topic could be swapped with another. The topics where I feel my contribution is less essential would be Progress Events, DOM3 Events, Views and XHR1, so if we can swap in either of those I would greatly appreciate it. OK, so I propose to swap the CORS discussion with the DOM 3 Events discussion, unless someone screams today... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: TPAC agenda - APIs
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:09 AM, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: Hi folks, there is a proposed timeline at http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009APIs#Agenda_Items Please have a look, and if you think your input is important for any session but you will be in a different session, or only participating remotely, please let us know ASAP so we can attempt to make necessary arrangements (dial-up might be hard, but we can move the sessions that are not joint sessions). Note that some sessions have fairly small things in them. It would be nice to have some more free time, although we will probably manage to soak it up with discussion of other issues. Regarding the joint session with DAP; The filesystem spec seems... how should I say this politely.. to be lacking details. In fact, I can't find a single thing it defines. Normatively or informatively. :) Is it expected to get some more meat on its bones before the meeting? I'll also note that it seems to be lacking any requirements regarding security. / Jonas
Re: [FileAPI] Latest Revision of Editor's Draft
Arun Ranganathan wrote: The latest revision of the FileAPI editor's draft is available here: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ ... 4. A suggestion to *not* have a separate scheme (filedata:) in lieu of urn:uuid:uuid[2] has been the basis of a rewrite of that feature in this version of the specification. ... Is there a particular reason why a specific URI scheme needs to be called out at all? (there are other schemes that may be more flexible, for instance because they allow using a UUID/String pair for identification). Best regards, Julian
Re: TPAC agenda - APIs
On Oct 29, 2009, at 08:38 , Jonas Sicking wrote: Regarding the joint session with DAP; The filesystem spec seems... how should I say this politely.. to be lacking details. In fact, I can't find a single thing it defines. Normatively or informatively. :) Is it expected to get some more meat on its bones before the meeting? I'll also note that it seems to be lacking any requirements regarding security. Are you talking about DAP's FS API? Well yeah, we got started pretty recently. We have however had inputs on this topic from Nokia, BONDI, PhoneGap, and going back before inception Opera. The idea is that DAP would only do what's not already done by the File API (I don't know if there's a point in merging, or something like that — it might be worth discussing), and that the FS should work in a way that fits nicely with File. I think that's already good grounds for discussion. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: TPAC agenda - APIs
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:43:15 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:11:23 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 4:09 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: there is a proposed timeline at http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009APIs#Agenda_Items ... I am extremely interested in the CORS discussion, and I feel I can provide helpful input in this discussion. But I have a prior commitment with the other HTML WG co-chairs from 11-12 on Tesday. I would appreciate if that topic could be swapped with another. The topics where I feel my contribution is less essential would be Progress Events, DOM3 Events, Views and XHR1, so if we can swap in either of those I would greatly appreciate it. OK, so I propose to swap the CORS discussion with the DOM 3 Events discussion, unless someone screams today... Art did. Alternative, swap it with the databases and offline storage session. Preferences? cheers chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
CORS: Monday Nov 2 13:30-15:00? [Was: Re: TPAC agenda - APIs]
On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:19 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:43:15 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:11:23 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 4:09 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: there is a proposed timeline at http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009APIs#Agenda_Items ... I am extremely interested in the CORS discussion, and I feel I can provide helpful input in this discussion. But I have a prior commitment with the other HTML WG co-chairs from 11-12 on Tesday. I would appreciate if that topic could be swapped with another. The topics where I feel my contribution is less essential would be Progress Events, DOM3 Events, Views and XHR1, so if we can swap in either of those I would greatly appreciate it. OK, so I propose to swap the CORS discussion with the DOM 3 Events discussion, unless someone screams today... Art did. Alternative, swap it with the databases and offline storage session. Preferences? I can rearrange the Widgets agenda [1] such that I can attend a CORS discussion on Monday November 2 from 13:30-15:00. So yes, please speak up by the end of today. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets
Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session
If we have time and interest, I suggest we might also discuss in the joint DAP/WebApps Widgets session HTML5 security model, even if we also discuss in the joint DAP/WebApps API session, depending on the expertise in the room. I would like to make sure we transfer understanding to the DAP WG from everyone who can help the DAP WG and I'd like to make sure that somehow we have this discussion during TPAC. Thus Agenda topic for joint DAP/Webapps-Widget is Security Considerations, including HTML5. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Co-Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
Re: [widgets interface] Tests generated from WebIDL
Apache Wookie got 2 that failed, and the rest couldn't run - I think because WindowWidget is not required for all UAs to conform, but is required as a prerequisite by the test. After some tweaking I got some slightly more useful results... so its definitely a start! We've been using this for testing up until now, which is just hand crafted test cases and isn't generated from IDL: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/wookie/trunk/widgets/test.wgt S On 28 Oct 2009, at 21:52, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: Le mercredi 28 octobre 2009 à 22:43 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a écrit : Since I don’t have a widgets engine that would implement the spec, I haven’t been able to check if they detect anything remotely useful, but I’m hoping they do — maybe someone with such a runtime engine could load http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/tests/idl-gen/all.html and see if any tests pass? Actually, I’ve just remembered that Opera had graciously shared an early build of the next version of their widgets runtime engine, and running it on the test widget, I get 15 tests that pass and 13 that fail (17 that couldn’t be run due to the said failures), which make me hopeful the tests are actually useful. I’m naturally still interested on feedback on the generated tests. Dom smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[widgets] Draft Minutes for 29 October 2009 Voice Conference
The draft minutes from the October 29 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-wam-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before 12 November 2009 (the next Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered Approved. -Regards, Art Barstow [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Widgets Voice Conf 29 Oct 2009 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2009OctDec/0399.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-wam-irc Attendees Present Art, Frederick, Jere, David, Marcin, Bryan, Josh Regrets Marcos Chair Art Scribe Art Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]how to have a meeting with IRC only 2. [6]Review and tweak agenda 3. [7]Announcements 4. [8]Planning for Nov 2-3 f2f meeting 5. [9]TWI spec: topic list for f2f meeting 6. [10]WARP spec: topic list for f2f meeting 7. [11]AOB * [12]Summary of Action Items _ scribe ScribeNick: ArtB scribe Scribe: Art Date: 29 October 2009 Bryan conference is restricted at this time: Bryan code 9231 is not accepted Bryan capiche? shepazu, HELP! how to have a meeting with IRC only drogersuk can't get into the conference call at the moment.. AB: the bridge isn't working so we will use IRC only for this short meeting marcin aah, Zakim Review and tweak agenda AB: draft agenda was published yesterday ( [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/03 99.html ). Since then Marcos closed 4a, and 4b. so they will be dropped. ... additionally, Marcos regrets for today means we will postpone 4c to next week's f2f meeting. Result is, we won't discuss PC spec today. ... any other change requests for the Agenda? ... re the TWI and WARP parts of the agenda - we will only discuss the topics for next week; we will NOT do a deep dive for any of the topics [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 2009OctDec/0399.html Bryan can we make the bridge work? AB: anyone have any questions before the next topic? Announcements drogersuk you can use the OMTP bridge if you want? AB: does anyone have any short announcements? ... no, we are going to just use IRC today but thanks for the offer Bryan +bryan Planning for Nov 2-3 f2f meeting AB: I made a few changes to the agenda ( [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets) earlier today. Some specs will not be on the agenda: DigSig, URI, Updates and VM-I. ... any comments on f2f agenda? [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets) drogersuk I think we need to discuss the security guidelines drogersuk e.g. for viewmodes AB: VM-MF is on the agenda ... we can add Security Guidelines ... it will be Monday 16:30-18:00 slot drogersuk sorry I'm struggling to keep up with all these acronyms marcin ok JereK Nice of you to leave slots for people to catch up other overlapping WGs, thanks AB: thanks Jere ... David, OK? scribe ACTION: barstow add security guidelines to the topic list for Monday 16:30-18:00 time slot on Nov 2 [recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-wam-minutes.html#action01] trackbot Created ACTION-430 - Add security guidelines to the topic list for Monday 16:30-18:00 time slot on Nov 2 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-11-05]. drogersuk Thanks Art AB: any other general comments on the agenda? ... we will discuss topic list for TWI and WARP as separate topics today ... last call for general comments on Nov 2-3 agenda ... ... it's unfortunate in some ways there are so many overlapping meetings but it does have the advantage we can meet f2f with other groups fh link to agenda is where? AB: in the long run, I think the advantages outweigh ... here [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets#Monday.2C_No vember_2 [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets#Monday. 2C_November_2 arve did the pin change? AB: re bridge for remote participants, Arve made his requests. Are there any other requests? arve I tried calling in on my way here, but this conference has been restricted arve oki, suits me perfectly :D AB: consider this your last chance to ask for bridge requests for Nov 2-3 ... besides Arve, any other bridge requests? [ None ] TWI spec: topic list for f2f meeting fh note, DAP should have a bridge for the joint meeting times AB: the topic list for the TWI spec is at (
RE: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session
Hi, As discussed on the webapps call, in addition to Fredrick's proposal I think we need to understand the relationship between DAP / Widgets / WebApps / HTML5 more clearly. There are overlaps and architectural disparities which we should highlight and come up with a plan for dealing with. Would it be possible for the chairs to come up with some input in terms of an architecture diagram of where they think we are? Thanks, David. -Original Message- From: public-device-apis-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch Sent: 29 October 2009 14:28 To: public-Webapps@w3.org WG Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Charles McCathieNevile; W3C Device APIs and Policy WG Subject: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session If we have time and interest, I suggest we might also discuss in the joint DAP/WebApps Widgets session HTML5 security model, even if we also discuss in the joint DAP/WebApps API session, depending on the expertise in the room. I would like to make sure we transfer understanding to the DAP WG from everyone who can help the DAP WG and I'd like to make sure that somehow we have this discussion during TPAC. Thus Agenda topic for joint DAP/Webapps-Widget is Security Considerations, including HTML5. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Co-Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
Re: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session
David Would it be possible for you to summarize what you think the issue is, as far as architecture and technical disparities, as a first step? regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext David Rogers wrote: Hi, As discussed on the webapps call, in addition to Fredrick's proposal I think we need to understand the relationship between DAP / Widgets / WebApps / HTML5 more clearly. There are overlaps and architectural disparities which we should highlight and come up with a plan for dealing with. Would it be possible for the chairs to come up with some input in terms of an architecture diagram of where they think we are? Thanks, David. -Original Message- From: public-device-apis-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch Sent: 29 October 2009 14:28 To: public-Webapps@w3.org WG Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Charles McCathieNevile; W3C Device APIs and Policy WG Subject: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session If we have time and interest, I suggest we might also discuss in the joint DAP/WebApps Widgets session HTML5 security model, even if we also discuss in the joint DAP/WebApps API session, depending on the expertise in the room. I would like to make sure we transfer understanding to the DAP WG from everyone who can help the DAP WG and I'd like to make sure that somehow we have this discussion during TPAC. Thus Agenda topic for joint DAP/Webapps-Widget is Security Considerations, including HTML5. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Co-Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
Re: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session
On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext David Rogers wrote: As discussed on the webapps call, in addition to Fredrick's proposal I think we need to understand the relationship between DAP / Widgets / WebApps / HTML5 more clearly. There are overlaps and architectural disparities which we should highlight and come up with a plan for dealing with. Please elaborate on the overlaps and architectural disparities. -Regards, Art Barstow
RE: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session
LOL, I wasn't expecting me to do the legwork for you all :-) One example would be FileSystem in DAP and the File API in webapps. How do these two fit together? I only saw an email on thoughts/assumptions about this recently. To the outside observer, it is not easy to see what the differences are and how this all fits together. We need to have a clear view (on one sheet of paper) about where these overlaps are and what the plan is for dealing with them. I was assuming that the chairs are best placed to do put the starting input in for this. Thanks, David. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: 29 October 2009 16:04 To: David Rogers Cc: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston); public-Webapps@w3.org WG; Charles McCathieNevile; W3C Device APIs and Policy WG; Robin Berjon; Nick Allott Subject: Re: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext David Rogers wrote: As discussed on the webapps call, in addition to Fredrick's proposal I think we need to understand the relationship between DAP / Widgets / WebApps / HTML5 more clearly. There are overlaps and architectural disparities which we should highlight and come up with a plan for dealing with. Please elaborate on the overlaps and architectural disparities. -Regards, Art Barstow
Re: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:18:31 +0100, David Rogers david.rog...@omtp.org wrote: LOL, I wasn't expecting me to do the legwork for you all :-) One example would be FileSystem in DAP and the File API in webapps. How do these two fit together? I only saw an email on thoughts/assumptions about this recently. To the outside observer, it is not easy to see what the differences are and how this all fits together. We need to have a clear view (on one sheet of paper) about where these overlaps are and what the plan is for dealing with them. I was assuming that the chairs are best placed to do put the starting input in for this. That's the major centrepiece of why we have a joint APIs/DAP meeting planned :) cheers Chaals Thanks, David. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: 29 October 2009 16:04 To: David Rogers Cc: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston); public-Webapps@w3.org WG; Charles McCathieNevile; W3C Device APIs and Policy WG; Robin Berjon; Nick Allott Subject: Re: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext David Rogers wrote: As discussed on the webapps call, in addition to Fredrick's proposal I think we need to understand the relationship between DAP / Widgets / WebApps / HTML5 more clearly. There are overlaps and architectural disparities which we should highlight and come up with a plan for dealing with. Please elaborate on the overlaps and architectural disparities. -Regards, Art Barstow -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
RE: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session
Hi, So of course that was one example and I'm trying not to get into detail here - my main point is that currently we have no big picture view, I don't think that is good enough. This is why I want to put a specific agenda point forward for the following: I think a key output of TPAC for those overlapping groups / work items should be an overall architectural view highlighting overlaps and issues and an accompanying plan to deal with those issues. To reiterate, that is: webapps (APIs), webapps (widgets), DAP, HTML5 and the overall security considerations. I think the Chairs should jointly own this and it should be presentable to the outside world at any stage. Cheers, David. -Original Message- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:cha...@opera.com] Sent: 29 October 2009 16:53 To: David Rogers; Arthur Barstow Cc: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston); public-Webapps@w3.org WG; W3C Device APIs and Policy WG; Robin Berjon; Nick Allott Subject: Re: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:18:31 +0100, David Rogers david.rog...@omtp.org wrote: LOL, I wasn't expecting me to do the legwork for you all :-) One example would be FileSystem in DAP and the File API in webapps. How do these two fit together? I only saw an email on thoughts/assumptions about this recently. To the outside observer, it is not easy to see what the differences are and how this all fits together. We need to have a clear view (on one sheet of paper) about where these overlaps are and what the plan is for dealing with them. I was assuming that the chairs are best placed to do put the starting input in for this. That's the major centrepiece of why we have a joint APIs/DAP meeting planned :) cheers Chaals Thanks, David. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: 29 October 2009 16:04 To: David Rogers Cc: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston); public-Webapps@w3.org WG; Charles McCathieNevile; W3C Device APIs and Policy WG; Robin Berjon; Nick Allott Subject: Re: Proposed additional topic for joint DAP/WebApps Widgets F2F session On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext David Rogers wrote: As discussed on the webapps call, in addition to Fredrick's proposal I think we need to understand the relationship between DAP / Widgets / WebApps / HTML5 more clearly. There are overlaps and architectural disparities which we should highlight and come up with a plan for dealing with. Please elaborate on the overlaps and architectural disparities. -Regards, Art Barstow -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Next-generation file API use cases
Howdy, folks. I'm a new guy on Google's Chrome team, having just moved over from O3D. I'm interested in talking about the stuff that's not going to make it into the current iteration of the file API you've been discussing. Following Arun's suggestion [1], I thought I'd post some use cases to start things off. I've taken some from the list archives and others from discussions I've had off-list. I'm assuming here that before any of this gets implemented, we'll have an API that lets one: * select and load files via user intervention. * slice out a subrange of a file. * give a handle to a local file (perhaps as a URN produced by a File) to the image tag, the video tag, XHR, etc. I've broken the following list into two sections, by requirements. Group 1 Persistent uploader * When a file's selected for upload, it copies it into a local sandbox and uploads a chunk at a time. * It can restart uploads after browser crashes, network interruptions, etc. * [Optional extension] The user may select an entire directory of files in a single operation. Video game or other app with lots of media assets [2][3][4] * It downloads one or several large tarballs, and expands them locally into a directory structure. * The same download should work on any operating system. * It can manage prefetching just the next-to-be-needed assets in the background, so going to the next game level or activating a new feature doesn't require waiting for a download. * It uses those assets directly from its local cache, by direct file reads or by handing local URIs to image or video tags, O3D or WebGL asset loaders, etc. * The files may be of arbitrary binary format. * On the server side, a compressed tarball will often be much smaller than a tarball of separately-compressed files. Also, 1 tarball instead of 1000 little files will involve fewer seeks, all else being equal. Audio editor with offline access or local cache for speed * See Aviary's Myna [5] for an example of this being done in Flash. * The data blobs are potentially quite large, and are read-write. * It may want to do partial writes to files (ovewriting just the ID3 tags, for example). * The ability to organize project files by creating directories would be useful. Offline video viewer * It downloads large files (1GB) for later viewing. * It needs efficient seek + streaming. * It must be able to hand a file handle of some sort to the video tag. * It should enable access to partly-downloaded files e.g. to let you watch the first episode of the DVD even if your download didn't complete before you got on the plane. * It should be able to pull a single episode out of the middle of a download and give just that to the video tag. Offline GMail * Downloads attachments and stores them locally. * Caches user-selected attachments for later upload. * Needs to be able to refer to cached attachments and image thumbnails for display and upload. * Should be able to trigger the UA's download manager just as if talking to a server [Content-Disposition: attachment]. * Wants to upload an email with attachments as a multipart post, rather than sending a file at a time in an XHR. Group 2 Client-side editor for non-sandboxed files * In order to have a save function (not just save-as), it will require persistent privileges to write to selected non-sandboxed files. Photo organizer/uploader * It monitors e.g. your My Photos directory and subdirectories and automatically processes/uploads new additions. * It needs persistent read access to an entire directory tree outside the sandbox. * It can restart uploads without having to make a local copy of each file, as long as it's OK just to start over with the new version if an in-progress file changes. Group 1 all require writing to the disk, need no access to files outside of a private per-origin sandbox (except where that's satisfied by the API you're already working on, with a few small extensions), and are all hard to build efficiently on top of a database, key-value store, or AppCache, due to their manipulations of large blobs. While you could break any large dataset into chunks and string them together as rows in a database, it's a pain to do anything with them. You'd end up needing to implement a file abstraction in JavaScript, and if everyone's going to do that anyway, I think that it's better to standardize it and make it efficient by leveraging the host platform. We won't necessarily want to expose all the capabilities of the local filesystem (e.g. atime, chmod, etc.) but a simple subset would go a long way. Also, by using the native filesystem, we help keep the browser from being a silo. Users can copy their data out easily, allow iTunes or Pandora to index and play music produced by a web app, etc. Group 2, in addition to the requirements
