Hi Art, For what it's worth, the File API: Directories and System is also implemented (and supported) by Apache Cordova[1]. The implementation is essentially complete for mobile applications on Android, iOS and FireOS, with nearly-complete support on Blackberry and Windows Phone.
While our plugin registry was counting downloads, it was the most-downloaded plugin for the platform by a wide margin, so I believe it is being used actively. I don't know if Cordova should count as a browser implementation for the purposes of this WG, but we are implementing the APIs and making them available to (hybrid) web application developers. [1] <http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/3.3.0/cordova_file_file.md.html#File> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com>wrote: > Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All, > > During the review of the first draft of WebApps' proposed charter > extension, Marcos raised (indirectly) a question [1] about the plan for > WebApps' various file system APIs and I agreed to followup. > > We have the two specs that Eric edits: > > * File API: Writer <http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ > file-system/file-writer.html>. The last ED update was 30-Jan-2013 and > last TR publication was 17-Apr-2012 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD- > file-writer-api-20120417/>. > > * File API: Directories and System <http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ > file-system/file-dir-sys.html>. The last ED update was and last TR > publication was 17-Apr-2012 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD- > file-system-api-20120417/>. > > We also have this spec from Arun and Jonas: > > * FileSystem API <http://w3c.github.io/filesystem-api/Overview.html>. The > last update of the ED was 2-Oct-2013 and this spec has not been published > as a TR. > > My understanding is the only implementation of Eric's APIs is Chrome. I do > not know the implementation status of Mozilla's spec. If anyone has > additional information about the implementation status or plans of either > effort, please let us know. > > The last discussion about the relationship between these different efforts > was August 2013 [Aug-2013] and prior to that, there was some discussion > during the April 2013 f2f meeting [April-2013]. > > Ultimately, I think there is broad agreement a single API that is broadly > implemented and deployed would be `best` (f.ex. reduces FUD, lightens > implementation costs, lightens deployment costs, etc.). Although I would > (still) like to be optimistic we can agree to converge on a single API, > previous discussions about this do make me skeptical ... > > Eric, Arun, Jonas - can you agree and commit to converge your efforts, > f.ex. just have a single API? > > All - if we can't get a commitment to converge these efforts: > > * Do we want to continue both efforts (and thus reflect this in the > charter update)? > > * Should we take a vote/poll with a goal to select a single effort and to > stop work on the effort that has less support? > > * Something else? > > Comments are welcome. > > -Thanks, ArtB > > [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2014JanMar/0093.html> > [Aug-2013] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2013JulSep/0334.html> > [April-2013] <http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-webapps-minutes.html#item13> > > > > > >
