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? 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. I may have a few small bits of feedback on the color of the bikeshed, but mostly I'm going to stay out of it, lest I accidentally give the impression that we're going to implement it. As I stated at the F2F, we'll be the last ones to do it, but if 2 major browser vendors ship it first, we'll certainly consider it. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Arun Ranganathan <a...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Greetings Eric and WG, > > The Chair and I were discussing setting up repositories for the > specifications discussed here > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0307.html), > notably the FileSystem API and File API v2. Before creating a repository to > edit the FileSystem API, we thought we'd check with you about the first > proposal, which Chrome implements, and get the Google perspective. > > You've edited the first FileSystem API proposal, which currently lives here > (http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/). Can I create a repository and edit > the other proposal for FileSystem API, which currently exists as an email > thread > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0379.html) > ? > > Just checking to see if there are any objections or concerns that would stop > a draft or future WG activity. Of course, technical nits should be heard as > well, and can proceed concurrently with a draft :) > > -- A*