Open jplyle opened 11 years ago
I agree (see my rewrite of the abstract).
I've started early work on breaking the two up this already - actually, it's broken into more parts than that.
How I see it is:
We need to have a serious discussion if we really need 3.
Ok. Your changes to the abstract are a great improvement.
One of the tasks I had intended to do this week was to suggest some wording improvements to Section 9.4, as well. Should I wait for your changes? I'm also, as discussed on the mailing lists, planning to update and improve the "Security Requirements for System Applications" text I wrote in January ( http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/SecurityModel/RequirementsForSecurityModel.html ). I don't know whether this can find a good home somewhere in this repository.
Thanks,
@jplyle no, please don't wait. I'm currently only focusing on processing the manifest and the i18n model, so there is no risk of overlap. However, is there some way we can coordinate this process a bit better? It would be good to know what section each person is working on and for use to be able to communicate in realtime. Are you on IRC? if so, I'm always on #sysapps on the w3c's IRC server.
@marcoscaceres Sure. I've joined the channel.
The current specification defines what a 'hosted' application is within the 'packaged applications' section. It would be better to introduce both in an earlier section, and then have sections for each, specifying in more detail.
I also think this section should come earlier in the document, because many other sections (including the manifest section) change depending on whether it is a packaged or hosted application.
I am happy to help write / review / comment on any changes.