add WICG specs table

[marcoscaceres]

@plehegar, could you provide us some guidance with regards to these? See my email about the updated scope and if we should list these explicitly.

We should get some kind of public signal that implementers and the community are interested in:

• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? WICG/keyboard-lock#48
• Migrating to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? WICG/keyboard-map#23
• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? WICG/cookie-store#96 Mozilla support + Google implements.
• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? web-locks#55
• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? web-share#83 Apple implement + Google implements.
• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? web-share-target#73 Mozilla supports + Google implements.
• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? badging#15 - Mozilla supports + Google implements.

The following were rejected:

• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? WICG/page-lifecycle#28 - will go into HTML
• Migration to WebApps WG: Implementor interest? WICG/file-system-access#32 - needs more work.

[marcoscaceres]

Ok, looks like life cycle can be removed based on the feedback. It’s supposed to just patch HTML.

[plehegar]

The scope of the Web Applications (ex-webplat, ex-webapps) has been historically too broad, thus making participation difficult from an IP perspective. The way to solve was to restrict the deliverables section, by asking for an explicit rechartering if a new deliverable was being brought up. The idea is that, in the worst case scenario, we'd have to do a rechartering but would attempt to limit the AC discussion to only the addition.

My suggestion here that, if you believe you may bring any of the documents on the rec-track within 2 years, you might as well as say in the draft charter, ie "Depending on the WICG progress, the Group may also produce W3C Recommendations for the following document: [list]". This way, it makes it clear it's on the REC-track, avoid rechartering, but still doesn't commit the Group to it. So your pull request seems fine to me.

[marcoscaceres]

Oh woops, bunch of specs listed were not supposed to be merged in.