Web Applications Working Group Rechartering

[siusin]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter: Web Applications Working Group Charter

This is an Existing WG recharter:

Diff from the previous versions.

Communities suggested for outreach: https://github.com/w3c/webappswg or ping @marcoscaceres and @siusin in this issue.

Anything else we should think about as we review?
The group adopted Image Resource and WebShare in the previous charter period. The Editing TF will be separated from the WebApps WG.

[himorin]

• a link of the initial charter in the charter history points #, which should be https://www.w3.org/2020/12/webapps-wg-charter.html? (also, changes for this charter is not complete?)
• patent policy implementation link (in 8. patent policy) lacks group ID? (also better to use new URL?)

[himorin]

No comment/request from i18n.

[michael-n-cooper]

APA has no comments. Over to @brewerj to complete accessibility horizontal review.

[siusin]

Any other comments before we move to the next step? We plan to close this review on Friday.

/cc @brewerj

[samuelweiler]

Curious as to why the "where do you want issues" was removed from this funnel issue template.

This charter doesn't include the usual HR text nor the text about security and privacy sections in specs. I also notice that this is a weirdly formatted charter, e.g. having two copies of the deliverables list, with only two documents showing a "Status" field. (I went through and compared the lists. At least they match, though they are sorted differently.) While I'm not in love with the present charter template, and this approach is visually nicer, I'm not sure I see the need for the divergence.

I kindly suggest starting with the template and stuffing things back into it. I recognize that doing so is a pain. We need a less painful process. But it's the best process we have for now. Otherwise, your charter reviewers will need to pick apart every line and say "this doesn't match the agreed-to blah", and that's terribly inefficient and frustrating for the reviewers. Which isn't to say you can't diverge from the template (for cause), or that the template doesn't need fixing. Please file copious pull requests against the template.

• Ungrammatical sentence "New specification features for should be..."
• There is no Web Security IG any longer. Just remove the line.
• The review invitation line is repeated twice in section 3; switching to the standard template should fix this.
• You mention is this issue "The Editing TF will be separated from the WebApps WG." - I don't see any mention of that in either the old or new charter. Should there be?

Flagging this as needs-resolution given the missing text re: sec & privacy sections, if not the general departure from the template. Please tag me again when the boilerplate is cleaned up.

[siusin]

@samuelweiler
Thanks for the comments. I hope pull #52 could address the two issues you mentioned:

• Remove the WebSec IG from Coordination;
• Switch to the latest charter template for the Success Criteria section and the Coordination section.

Regarding the Editing TF, in the Charter History section, we added

Remove Clipboard API and Events, ContentEditable, Selection API, and Input Events from the Deliverables.

The name of the Editing TF was never mentioned in the previous versions, so we would prefer only listing the names of the specs.

[siusin]

To the Horizontal review team, please note that we have added WebIDL as a possible deliverable per the request of the new MoU. Please let us know if you have any new review comments by next Monday 14 June.

[marcoscaceres]

I'll also add User-Agent Client Hint to the charter, as suggested by the TAG. Will do my best to do that tomorrow!
Some background is here w3ctag/design-reviews#640

It will be as a possible thing we adopt from the WICG.

[siusin]

@samuelweiler @marcoscaceres @brewerj @wseltzer
Any other comments? Can we close this review today?

[samuelweiler]

Thank you for cleaning up the horizontal review language. I still say this is a weird charter, but I feel no need to block it.

[marcoscaceres]

I still say this is a weird charter, but I feel no need to block it.

I'd be keen to hear a bit more (and yeah, it's a bit of a weird group with a very long legacy). Happy to fix stuff in parallel tho! You always have great input, @samuelweiler.

[siusin]

Hold it for an objection in the DAS recharter AC review:

It's unclear to us why the Contacts API would be included in DAS, instead of a more suitable group such as WebApps. The Contacts API is neither about devices nor sensors.

[plehegar]

@brewerj @michael-n-cooper , please note the addition of the Haptic API as a potential deliverable w3c/webappswg#57

[samuelweiler]

Results of AC review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webappswg-2021/results, 2021-08-16 to 2021-09-13.

[wseltzer]

Rechartered: https://www.w3.org/2022/04/webapps-wg-charter.html