RE: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
Hi. Art. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 9:09 PM To: public-webapps; public-sysa...@w3.org; Marcos Caceres Subject: Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC? On 10/31/13 8:51 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: (I'm trying to get a sense if this meeting should be canceled or perhaps reduced to 30 mins.) Thanks for the feedback All. At the moment, it appears Manifest is the only topic of mutual interest and that further discussion within SysApps (e.g. UCs), investigation by Macros, discussion on the mail list, etc. is needed before it would be useful to have a joint meeting. As such, I am inclined to cancel the joint meeting. I agreed. Wonsuk, Mounir - unless I hear otherwise from you, I will cancel the joint meeting (I already reduced the time slot for this topic to 16:00-16:30). Okay. Thanks a lot for coordination! Kr, Wonsuk. -Thanks, ArtB
RE: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
Hi. Marcos. -Original Message- From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w...@marcosc.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:24 AM To: Nilsson, Claes1 Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; public-sysa...@w3.org Subject: Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC? On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote: I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and also to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have already been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/contentSecurityPolicy.html, which allows inclusion of content security policies to support secure hosted apps by defining schemes (https:) that are allowed to use for whitelisting secure origins from which scripts should be accepted. This is orthogonal to the manifest, as web apps can already do this. Adding this to the manifest would only be sugar to allow developers to tighten the CSP. I would also like to better understand what a meta tag solution would mean. See: https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/documentation/AppleApplications /Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html And: https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/installtohomescreen So, some standardized thing of the above (without the proprietary prefixes, of course). However, as the manifest specification editor Marcos unfortunately is not able to participate in TPAC I am not sure on the most efficient way to discuss the manifest, a joint SysApps-WebApps session with Marcos calling in or a mailing list discussion. I’m happy to dial in, but would like to know specially what people want to discuss about it. My main point is to stress our interest in the manifest specification and additions to it. I think it’s more important to understand the use cases, and then we can evaluate if the manifest is the appropriate place to address those. I think one of big benefit with manifest format is we can use hyperlink for that. User can install a web app with manifest format, no need to visit a site. So manifest can provide more smooth way of installation to user. They can install apps via links in blogs, twitter, facebook, extra. What do you think? Kr, Wonsuk.
Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
On 10/31/13 8:51 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: (I'm trying to get a sense if this meeting should be canceled or perhaps reduced to 30 mins.) Thanks for the feedback All. At the moment, it appears Manifest is the only topic of mutual interest and that further discussion within SysApps (e.g. UCs), investigation by Macros, discussion on the mail list, etc. is needed before it would be useful to have a joint meeting. As such, I am inclined to cancel the joint meeting. Wonsuk, Mounir - unless I hear otherwise from you, I will cancel the joint meeting (I already reduced the time slot for this topic to 16:00-16:30). -Thanks, ArtB
RE: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
I observe that both the FFOS manifest (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Developing/Manifest?redirectlocale=en-USredirectslug=Web%2FApps%2FManifest#csp) and the Chrome Extension apps manifest (http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/manifest.html) include CSP definition possibilities. I say +1 to Wonsuk's use cases. Claes -Original Message- From: Wonsuk Lee [mailto:wonsuk11@samsung.com] Sent: den 1 november 2013 07:25 To: 'Marcos Caceres' Cc: 'public-webapps'; public-sysa...@w3.org Subject: RE: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC? Hi. Marcos. -Original Message- From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w...@marcosc.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:24 AM To: Nilsson, Claes1 Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; public-sysa...@w3.org Subject: Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC? On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote: I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and also to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have already been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/contentSecurityPolicy.html, which allows inclusion of content security policies to support secure hosted apps by defining schemes (https:) that are allowed to use for whitelisting secure origins from which scripts should be accepted. This is orthogonal to the manifest, as web apps can already do this. Adding this to the manifest would only be sugar to allow developers to tighten the CSP. I would also like to better understand what a meta tag solution would mean. See: https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/documentation/AppleApplicat ions /Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html And: https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/installtohomescreen So, some standardized thing of the above (without the proprietary prefixes, of course). However, as the manifest specification editor Marcos unfortunately is not able to participate in TPAC I am not sure on the most efficient way to discuss the manifest, a joint SysApps-WebApps session with Marcos calling in or a mailing list discussion. I’m happy to dial in, but would like to know specially what people want to discuss about it. My main point is to stress our interest in the manifest specification and additions to it. I think it’s more important to understand the use cases, and then we can evaluate if the manifest is the appropriate place to address those. I think one of big benefit with manifest format is we can use hyperlink for that. User can install a web app with manifest format, no need to visit a site. So manifest can provide more smooth way of installation to user. They can install apps via links in blogs, twitter, facebook, extra. What do you think? Kr, Wonsuk.
[Manifest] use cases, was Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
On Friday, November 1, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Wonsuk Lee wrote: Hi. Marcos. I think one of big benefit with manifest format is we can use hyperlink for that. User can install a web app with manifest format, no need to visit a site. So manifest can provide more smooth way of installation to user. They can install apps via links in blogs, twitter, facebook, extra. What do you think? I think that use case is fine, but I think it might also be orthogonal to the manifest. You could also achieve the same thing by declaring in HTML that a link is to an installable application somehow (a@rel=“webapp” or some such). I want to be crystal clear - I’m not saying we don’t need the manifest, I just think that we need to better understand exactly what bits we need. I’m currently undertaking that research and will share it soon so more people can contribute to the discussion. Will likely do that as part of Web Mob [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/Mobile/IG/
Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [ My apologies in advance for cross-posting but I think it's needed for this coordination topic. ] Hi All, Last June, the Chairs of WebApps and SysApps agreed to allocate a time slot @ TPAC Shenzhen for a joint meeting from 16:00-17:00 on Monday November 11 [1]. The one topic currently identified for that slot is the Manifest spec. Marcos - would you please summarize the overall `state` of the Manifest spec (f.ex. the status, next steps, blockers, and such)? I would also like to know if you think there are some related issues that could potentially benefit from some meeting time, or if we can use the list server instead. I’m trying to figure out (or get agreement amongst those interested in implementing) if we should have a JSON manifest or go with the meta tag solution (or both) - this is a blocker. Current steps are for me to investigate the solutions and usage on teh Webs. No significant work has been done on the spec since it moved over to WebApps. I don’t mind if we do it on the list. But if others want me to dial in to discuss, I’m ok to do that. All - are there any other topics to discuss? Not from me. -- Marcos Caceres
RE: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and also to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have already been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/contentSecurityPolicy.html, which allows inclusion of content security policies to support secure hosted apps by defining schemes (https:) that are allowed to use for whitelisting secure origins from which scripts should be accepted. I would also like to better understand what a meta tag solution would mean. However, as the manifest specification editor Marcos unfortunately is not able to participate in TPAC I am not sure on the most efficient way to discuss the manifest, a joint SysApps-WebApps session with Marcos calling in or a mailing list discussion. My main point is to stress our interest in the manifest specification and additions to it. BR Claes -Original Message- From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w...@marcosc.com] Sent: den 31 oktober 2013 15:20 To: Arthur Barstow Cc: public-webapps; public-sysa...@w3.org Subject: Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC? On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [ My apologies in advance for cross-posting but I think it's needed for this coordination topic. ] Hi All, Last June, the Chairs of WebApps and SysApps agreed to allocate a time slot @ TPAC Shenzhen for a joint meeting from 16:00-17:00 on Monday November 11 [1]. The one topic currently identified for that slot is the Manifest spec. Marcos - would you please summarize the overall `state` of the Manifest spec (f.ex. the status, next steps, blockers, and such)? I would also like to know if you think there are some related issues that could potentially benefit from some meeting time, or if we can use the list server instead. I’m trying to figure out (or get agreement amongst those interested in implementing) if we should have a JSON manifest or go with the meta tag solution (or both) - this is a blocker. Current steps are for me to investigate the solutions and usage on teh Webs. No significant work has been done on the spec since it moved over to WebApps. I don’t mind if we do it on the list. But if others want me to dial in to discuss, I’m ok to do that. All - are there any other topics to discuss? Not from me. -- Marcos Caceres
Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
On 2013-10-31 16:04, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote: I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and also to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have already been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/contentSecurityPolicy.html, which allows inclusion of content security policies to support secure hosted apps by defining schemes (https:) that are allowed to use for whitelisting secure origins from which scripts should be accepted. http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/manifest.html The definition of the signature seems to be missing here. If JSON still is the choice, JWS (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-17) or JCS (https://openkeystore.googlecode.com/svn/resources/trunk/docs/JSON-Clear-Text-Signature-Scheme.pdf) are the two hottest candidates. Cheers Anders I would also like to better understand what a meta tag solution would mean. However, as the manifest specification editor Marcos unfortunately is not able to participate in TPAC I am not sure on the most efficient way to discuss the manifest, a joint SysApps-WebApps session with Marcos calling in or a mailing list discussion. My main point is to stress our interest in the manifest specification and additions to it. BR Claes -Original Message- From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w...@marcosc.com] Sent: den 31 oktober 2013 15:20 To: Arthur Barstow Cc: public-webapps; public-sysa...@w3.org Subject: Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC? On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [ My apologies in advance for cross-posting but I think it's needed for this coordination topic. ] Hi All, Last June, the Chairs of WebApps and SysApps agreed to allocate a time slot @ TPAC Shenzhen for a joint meeting from 16:00-17:00 on Monday November 11 [1]. The one topic currently identified for that slot is the Manifest spec. Marcos - would you please summarize the overall `state` of the Manifest spec (f.ex. the status, next steps, blockers, and such)? I would also like to know if you think there are some related issues that could potentially benefit from some meeting time, or if we can use the list server instead. I’m trying to figure out (or get agreement amongst those interested in implementing) if we should have a JSON manifest or go with the meta tag solution (or both) - this is a blocker. Current steps are for me to investigate the solutions and usage on teh Webs. No significant work has been done on the spec since it moved over to WebApps. I don’t mind if we do it on the list. But if others want me to dial in to discuss, I’m ok to do that. All - are there any other topics to discuss? Not from me. -- Marcos Caceres
Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote: I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and also to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have already been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/contentSecurityPolicy.html, which allows inclusion of content security policies to support secure hosted apps by defining schemes (https:) that are allowed to use for whitelisting secure origins from which scripts should be accepted. This is orthogonal to the manifest, as web apps can already do this. Adding this to the manifest would only be sugar to allow developers to tighten the CSP. I would also like to better understand what a meta tag solution would mean. See: https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html And: https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/installtohomescreen So, some standardized thing of the above (without the proprietary prefixes, of course). However, as the manifest specification editor Marcos unfortunately is not able to participate in TPAC I am not sure on the most efficient way to discuss the manifest, a joint SysApps-WebApps session with Marcos calling in or a mailing list discussion. I’m happy to dial in, but would like to know specially what people want to discuss about it. My main point is to stress our interest in the manifest specification and additions to it. I think it’s more important to understand the use cases, and then we can evaluate if the manifest is the appropriate place to address those.
