Re: [dispatch] A WG for HTTP API Building Blocks

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hey Mark,

I think this is a good idea in general.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 2:36 AM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This is the proposed charter:
> ~~~
> HTTP APIs Working Group (HTTPAPI)
>
> HTTP is often for not only Web browsing, but also machine-to-machine
> communication, often called 'HTTP APIs'. This Working Group will
> standardise HTTP protocol extensions for use in such cases, with a focus on
> building blocks for separate or combined use.
>
> Its output can include:
>         • Specifications for new HTTP header and/or trailer fields
>         • Specifications for new message body formats, or conventions for
> use in them (e.g., patterns of JSON objects)
>         • Proposals for new HTTP status codes, methods, or other generic
> extensions, to be considered by the HTTP Working Group
>         • Best practices and other documentation for HTTP API designers,
> consumers, implementers, operators, etc.
>
> Other items are out of scope. In particular, this WG will not take on work
> items for APIs for specific use cases, and it will not define new HTTP
> extension points, or new extensions that are likely to be used by Web
> browsers.
>

On a personal note, I struggle a bit to understand how some proposal "foo"
would be demarcated as HTTP vs HTTP API. That is probably case in point for
the need of a community that understands these things better than me.
I suspect my problem is that the interpretation of browsing is a little
open and the charter could benefit from being arbitrarily more explicit.
For instance, one pattern that is emerging is building Internet
applications around the Web Platform but otherwise not supporting the
notion of "general purpose web browsing", examples I have in mind are
Progressive Web Apps, applications built on top of Electron, or "TV apps"
in media clients. Therefore, the statement "[will not define] new
extensions that are likely to be used by Web browsers" seems to rule out
technologies and that seems a bit unfair.

Cheers,
Lucas