Re: HTML5 File
On Jun 3, 2010, at 19:29 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are definitely relevant Right, and some of your colleagues just submitted Powerbox there, which seems like a non-negligible chunk of work to me ;-) though I have concerns about the direction they are heading I regularly hear people having concerns about the direction in which DAP specs are heading. The shame is, they never seem to want to provide any details. Either way though, it seems strange for the filesystem apis to be split. As I said, it's historical, and due to no one pushing strong to correct that during chartering. Speaking personally, I don't really care much either way. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: HTML5 File
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: On Jun 3, 2010, at 19:29 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are definitely relevant Right, and some of your colleagues just submitted Powerbox there, which seems like a non-negligible chunk of work to me ;-) To be clear, Chrome-team is not involved in powerbox, nor is android team to the best of my knowledge. though I have concerns about the direction they are heading I regularly hear people having concerns about the direction in which DAP specs are heading. The shame is, they never seem to want to provide any details. Either way though, it seems strange for the filesystem apis to be split. As I said, it's historical, and due to no one pushing strong to correct that during chartering. Speaking personally, I don't really care much either way. I recall pushing strongly to correct that at TPAC in san jose. I don't think it's purely historical. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: HTML5 File
On 6/3/10 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:02 , Jonas Sicking wrote: I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor holds a certain amount of sway. Decisions of what is in scope for a WG are made by the members (i.e. you) when a WG is created. When DAP was created, people felt rather strongly (personally, I disagreed, I know that Arun had similar concerns) that adding deliverables to WebApps would be a bad idea as it already had many, and because there was already a lot of traffic on its list. To be clear, I was *very much in favor* of FileAPI-related items being added to WebApps, but was less enthusiastic about Widget-related items or the Web SQL Database item. David Baron, Mozilla's Advisory Committee Representative, made this stance public in a blog post: http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2010/04/30/mozilla-at-w3c-review-of-web-applications-wg-charter/ I'll note that the current charter -- http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/ -- uses the following language when discussing File API: An API for representing file objects in web applications, as well as programmatically selecting them and accessing their data. This may include file writing and file system APIs. This replaces the File Upload specification. This language in my opinion certainly includes FileWriter and anything FileSystem related, and moving from DAP -- WebApps should NOT warrant a charter review. This language was approved by all members. Moving to file-related APIs to WebApps (from DAP) has the following advantages: 1. Wide implementor review. My concern is that not ALL browser vendors are members of DAP; ALL browser vendors are members of WebApps. Moreover, since a charter review/amendment doesn't seem necessary, given the inclusive language around file APIs, I think there is a strong case to be made for this work to proceed in WebApps. 2. Family of specifications living together. Changes to FileAPI impace XHR (at least with the introduction of ArrayBuffers); Blob is useful in other areas, and FileWriter proposes a BlobBuilder. This was discussed publicly in the months leading up to DAP being chartered (including with involvement from Mozilla participants) but the eventual balance became the one we have today. I think (though I do not know for sure) that one factor in this was the fact that the File API which is so nicely alive today had, while DAP was being chartered, not been updated since 2006 and was still called the File Upload API. This is true. But, I see no impediment to changing this for the better, given the existing charter language on WebApps. Do you, or does anyone that is a member of the DAP WG? Likewise, does any member of the WebApps WG object strongly? -- A*
Re: HTML5 File
Hey all--I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this thread. I'm a little short on bandwidth right now, and that's likely going to get worse for at least a couple of weeks. First of all, I think this discussion should include DAP [+CC]. DAP folks, this discussion started at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0886.html. My take is that I've gotten lots of useful feedback on FileWriter on both webapps and DAP. However, recently most of the FileWriter discussion has been on webapps, mainly as asides on other topics, and the last time I sent a request for comments to DAP it received no responses. I would like to see both specs be officially discussed on webapps. I think we really need input from all the browser companies in order to make a solid API, and in order to produce something that everyone's eager to implement. If they won't come to DAP, then this part should come to them. I'd also appreciate it if DAP folks who've contributed to the specs so far continued to be involved. I don't know what the logistics of that would be. The specs are clearly within the charters of both groups. And of course several folks have been popping back and forth between lists anyway. I'm not really too bothered about the exact form of the discussion and publication, as long as we get everyone involved. Thanks, Eric On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote: On 6/3/10 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:02 , Jonas Sicking wrote: I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor holds a certain amount of sway. Decisions of what is in scope for a WG are made by the members (i.e. you) when a WG is created. When DAP was created, people felt rather strongly (personally, I disagreed, I know that Arun had similar concerns) that adding deliverables to WebApps would be a bad idea as it already had many, and because there was already a lot of traffic on its list. To be clear, I was *very much in favor* of FileAPI-related items being added to WebApps, but was less enthusiastic about Widget-related items or the Web SQL Database item. David Baron, Mozilla's Advisory Committee Representative, made this stance public in a blog post: http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2010/04/30/mozilla-at-w3c-review-of-web-applications-wg-charter/ I'll note that the current charter -- http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/ -- uses the following language when discussing File API: An API for representing file objects in web applications, as well as programmatically selecting them and accessing their data. This may include file writing and file system APIs. This replaces the File Upload specification. This language in my opinion certainly includes FileWriter and anything FileSystem related, and moving from DAP -- WebApps should NOT warrant a charter review. This language was approved by all members. Moving to file-related APIs to WebApps (from DAP) has the following advantages: 1. Wide implementor review. My concern is that not ALL browser vendors are members of DAP; ALL browser vendors are members of WebApps. Moreover, since a charter review/amendment doesn't seem necessary, given the inclusive language around file APIs, I think there is a strong case to be made for this work to proceed in WebApps. 2. Family of specifications living together. Changes to FileAPI impace XHR (at least with the introduction of ArrayBuffers); Blob is useful in other areas, and FileWriter proposes a BlobBuilder. This was discussed publicly in the months leading up to DAP being chartered (including with involvement from Mozilla participants) but the eventual balance became the one we have today. I think (though I do not know for sure) that one factor in this was the fact that the File API which is so nicely alive today had, while DAP was being chartered, not been updated since 2006 and was still called the File Upload API. This is true. But, I see no impediment to changing this for the better, given the existing charter language on WebApps. Do you, or does anyone that is a member of the DAP WG? Likewise, does any member of the WebApps WG object strongly? -- A*
