Add Web Share API to Deliverables

[anssiko]

Re-reading the new draft Charter, I feel the Web Share API fits within the scope with just minor amendment to the mission statement to bring back the word "services" present in the current Charter.

I expanded the API abstract a bit, since I feel "arbitrary destination" may raise questions and we should be more specific instead with regard to possible share targets.

I also noted Web Intents as a historical pointer.

PTAL @xfq @samuelweiler @dontcallmedom

FYI @mgiuca @marcoscaceres

Fixes #57.

[mgiuca]

Some more thoughts about which working group this should be in: my main concern about having it in the Device API group is that it would be in a different WG to the Manifest spec (Web Platform WG). Not really an issue for Web Share, but the Web Share Target spec is very closely tied to both the Web Share and the Web App Manifest specs and probably should ultimately be incorporated into the Manifest spec. So there could be some overhead if WS and WAM are in different working groups, which could be avoided if they were in the same group.

[marcoscaceres]

Yeah, that's a good point about manifest. Also, I can't recall if all browser vendors represented in DAP? We probably want to be talking to the folks from Apple about it.

[anssiko]

@mgiuca, would you be fine waiting until October 2018? If so, then WP WG might be a better WG to start with considering it has Apple onboard.

(Since rechartering is a costly exercise, I doubt they'd add new specs before the current WP WG Charter expires 30 September 2018.)

If you want to get this spec to the Standards Track sooner than that, one option is to start in DAS WG and migrate to WP WG when it recharters. This has been done before, for example WAM spec was started in another group, and migrated to WP WG (then WebApps WG) later.

Let us know your preference soon, since we're about to start W3C Management review of this Charter next week or so.

[marcoscaceres]

Hmmm... I seem to recall that being part of the WICG meant we had a less painful path to add things to the Web Platform WG... @plehegar or @dontcallmedom? Am I totally misremembering? it's been a while.

[mgiuca]

I am discussing with our standards team. The consensus seems to be in favour of Web Platform WG, but we haven't figured out the trade-off of waiting until October 2018. At this stage, I think we would want to put it in the WPWG charter as opposed to Device API.

[anssiko]

@marcoscaceres, the WP WG Charter is very explicit in this regard:

If the Working Group decides to add new Recommendation-track deliverables then it will recharter with changes to change its deliverables.

That said, WP WG has rechartered once in the past to add new deliverables before the charter has expired, although at that time it was not for a single spec, but for a bunch of changes to add, remove and spin off specs.

Ping WP WG team contacts @ylafon and @siusin to gauge feasibility of rechartering WP WG soonish to add the Web Share API.

[anssiko]

@samuelweiler is planning to ship the new Devices and Sensors WG Charter for W3C internal review possibly 20 December. We should resolve this issue prior to that.

@mgiuca, let us know latest 19 December if you'd like us to try bake Web Share API into the DAS WG Charter as proposed in this PR. Hearing nothing we don't integrate it.

(I pinged Web Platform WG group contacts @ylafon and @siusin but got no response with regard to that group's interest to add Web Share API.)

[ylafon]

@anssiko , We discussed the Web Share API during the last chairs call and were wondering if the right place was to have a new deliverable, or just try to fold it directly in another spec (likely HTML).
Of course adding a new deliverable to WPWG is possible but would require a rechartering, which is still a heavy process (as it involves AC review).
Note that WPWG's current charter expires September 2018, so a rechartering will happen next year for sure.

[mgiuca]

I've talked to a lot of people in Google and there is pretty strong consensus that WPWG is more appropriate for Web Share than Device API. So I think we'll try to get in there instead. Thanks!

@ylafon Are you the right person to talk to about WPWG? Maybe we can start discussing Web Share in the WG even if it can't be officially chartered as a deliverable until September.

[anssiko]

@mgiuca, thanks for closing the loop on this one. Based on your feedback, the DAS WG will not add Web Share API to its charter.

[ylafon]

@mgiuca yes, @siusin @xfq and me.

[mgiuca]

@ylafon: Cool. Do you have a similar GitHub where we can file an issue for this?

@anssiko: Thanks for the effort!

[marcoscaceres]

@mgiuca, @ylafon, kindly cc me on those discussions. Web Share is important to Mozilla and something we are interesting in seeing migrate to a W3C group as soon as possible.

[ylafon]

@mgiuca @marcoscaceres The WebPlatform WG's issue list is at https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues
(I can file the issue myself, but I'd rather have the origin of the issue clear if one of you start it).

[mgiuca]

Sorry I didn't get around to this until now. I've opened an issue on w3c/WebPlatformWG#105.