W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: FW: ACTION-660: Input to BP2, on Security and Privacy

From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:13:31 -0800
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD05D9400B@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
Cc: "BPWG-Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Sean,
I do think the wonderful/problematic capabilities (in the mobile
context) of advanced browsers as enabled by browser engines such as
webkit, should form the core of our focus in BP2.

I suggest that as we develop these recommendations, we consider
statements re their applicability to web applications running outside
the conventional concept of a web browser. There are a number of
examples e.g. in http://people.w3.org/mike/planet/handheld/ where the
market is quickly in this direction. I have seen a variety of production
service examples already, which means that it is real. 

But fundamentally I do agree with you: let's focus on the advanced
browser first, as an example of a user agent that runs atop advanced web
runtime engines.

But I believe we will also find that the best practices we develop are
of direct importance/usefulness to developers of other web applications
running on top of the same advanced web runtime engines.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 11:43 AM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: BPWG-Public
Subject: Re: FW: ACTION-660: Input to BP2, on Security and Privacy

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote:
>  this mean that you think W3C should be unconcerned about whether  
> widget-based web applications using XHTML+CSS, can effectively deal 
> with  presentation/interaction constraints of mobile devices, or 
> whether any  of the other fundamental issues of the mobile context are

> irrelevant to

If widgets are acting like a browser, then they're like a browser, so
yeah that's in scope, and thankfully not something that seems to need
special consideration.

>  them? The problem with BP1 was that it attempted to snapshot a view 
> in  time of a browser-based default context that has been quickly 
> superseded  by reality. The things in BP1 that are still relevant (and

> there are  quite a few), are those that address concerns not limited 
> to the DDC. We  should learn from that in BP2, and not arbitrarily 
> restrict our focus,  locking the T-Model Ford in the barn, but letting

> all the Porsche 911's  out.

I suppose I just look forward to hearing what we're talking about here,
if it's not, really, something matching the description of the WebKit
browser on an iPhone. If that's really what we're picturing -- this sort
of technology, this sort of level -- that feels right to me.
If not, I think it best to describe what we are talking about soon!
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 21:14:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:57 UTC