[wg/webapps] WebApps WG 2023 Rechartering

[siusin]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Proposed Draft Charter: https://w3c.github.io/webappswg/charter/draft-charter-2023.html

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• Existing

• [*] Existing WG recharter
• Existing IG recharter
• If this is a charter extension or revision, link a diff from previous charter, and any issue discussion: this will also affect the DAS charter, the WebAppsWG new charter plans to add a few joint deliverables with the DAS WG.

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach: @siusin /cc @himorin @plehegar

Known or potential areas of concern: None.

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? this strategy funnel issue

Anything else we should think about as we review?

cc @marcoscaceres @LJWatson

[plehegar]

Note: this is waiting on the DAS charter w3c/das-charter#123

[siusin]

Note: this is waiting on the DAS charter w3c/das-charter#123

Resolved.

[plehegar]

We should remove webidl from the charter unless the group intense to do something with it.

cc @marcoscaceres

[plehegar]

Added as a potential PING item for October 5. cc @npdoty

[ruoxiran]

APA is OK with this Charter.

[himorin]

no comment or request from i18n

[npdoty]

"monitoring" may be the wrong framing for privacy-preserving APIs on the Web: the goal of the platform should not be to monitor users' devices, but to allow users who want to to access certain capabilities.

Maybe:
"providing" location information, and not necessarily location information of the hosting device.
"reacting to changes in motion or orientation"

Defining these specifically as properties of the hosting device or as ongoing monitoring will overconstrain the designed solution in ways that don't align well with privacy.

[npdoty]

Is the Web Apps Working Group going to coordinate with the Devices and Sensors Working Group on geolocation or any other deliverables? If so, this charter should say so.

[himorin]

at the top of section 2 (or 2.1), there might be better to have a pointer to section 12?
like, draft state etc. mentioned in description at section 2 are only listed in section 12, but not in section 2.

[siusin]

We should remove webidl from the charter unless the group intense to do something with it.

cc @marcoscaceres

@plehegar @marcoscaceres
Oh, what is your final decision on WebIdl?

[svgeesus]

Minor point: maybe

the Group may also produce W3C Recommendations for the following documents

would be better as

the Group may also produce W3C Recommendation-track documents for the following documents

(not a blocker, just think it is clearer)

[siusin]

It was mentioned in TPAC that the ARIA in HTML spec might need to go to the ARIA WG - this will require a CfC in the group.

[siusin]

Minor point: maybe

the Group may also produce W3C Recommendations for the following documents

would be better as

the Group may also produce W3C Recommendation-track documents for the following documents

(not a blocker, just think it is clearer)

Done. Thanks! -> https://www.w3.org/2023/10/webappswg-charter-2023.html#wicgspecs

[siusin]

at the top of section 2 (or 2.1), there might be better to have a pointer to section 12? like, draft state etc. mentioned in description at section 2 are only listed in section 12, but not in section 2.

There was actually a reference in 2.4, but I added another ref in 2.1 anyway. Thanks. -> https://www.w3.org/2023/10/webappswg-charter-2023.html#normative

[plehegar]

Announced