design-reviews#1255: Incubation: Application Capability

#1255: Incubation: Application Capability

Visit on Github

Opened

Aug 6, 2026

Explainer

https://dokieli.github.io/application-capability/

The explainer

Includes the information requested by the Explainer Explainer.
Follows the Web Platform Design Principles.
Includes or links to answers to the Security/Privacy Questionnaire.
Describes user research you did to validate the problem and/or design.

Where and by whom is the work is being done?

GitHub repo: https://github.com/dokieli/application-capability
Primary contacts:
- Sarven Capadisli (@csarven), dokieli, editor
- Virginia Balseiro (@VirginiaBalseiro), dokieli, editor
Organization/project driving the design: dokieli (source)
This work is being funded by: Not funded
Incubation and standards groups that have discussed the design:
- W3C Solid Community Group
Standards group(s) that you expect to discuss and/or adopt this work when it's ready: unknown

Feedback so far

Multi-stakeholder feedback:
- Chromium comments: N/A (not requested; see note below)
- Mozilla comments: N/A (not requested; see note below)
- WebKit comments: N/A (not requested; see note below)
- Developer and implementer feedback:
  - dokieli implements features across the specification.
  - An independent Application Capability validator checks descriptions against a SHACL shape for the vocabulary.
  - Discussion with the PodOS project on application discovery and invocation: https://github.com/pod-os/PodOS/issues/47
- Note: the specification requires no browser engine changes. Discovery is dereferencing a description, and invocation is ordinary navigation to an IRI, so we have not requested engine vendor positions. We'd still welcome their review, particularly from those working on agent and application interoperability (for example WebMCP, see also https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1238 ).
  - Initially presented the specification to the Solid CG as a work item proposal (minutes, mailing list)
Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design:
- Venue: which existing or new standards group should further develop this specification (the question we are asking the TAG).
- The JSON-LD context and vocabulary are included in the specification until published at their own namespace.
- Under consideration: declaring whether an action has side effects (with guidance for Consumers acting autonomously), and describing capabilities of applications beyond the web, such as PWA and desktop applications.
- Would like to: do user research =)

You should also know that...

TAG hat off =)

Appreciate your time and consideration on this work.

@marcoscaceres recommended that we create this design review request.

Please note that the Explainer is a section in the specification.

From the TAG, we would like direction on venue. In which existing standards group, or under what new group, should this specification be further developed? And, needless to say, any other "direction" would be great.