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

Re: sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3

From: Adam Connors <adamconnors@google.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:49:17 +0100
Message-ID: <393b77970805230749k12c9e2f9idb76d8e70bdf29b6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
couldn't agree more... there is a short comment to that effect currently and
I will expand when I add the enumeration.

While we're on the subject, and at the risk of starting a thread that never
ends. There is also this comment:

*"Note that additional weight has been placed on those aspects of the mobile
context that are believed to be intrinsic and likely not to change in the
foreseeable future (e.g. limited input capabilities) as opposed to those
that are likely to disappear quickly as the technology evolves (e.g. limited
device processing capability). "*

Jo objected to the assertion that limited device processing capability was a
good example of a limitation that will become vanishingly insignificant in
the foreseeable future. Does anyone have strong opinions on what does /
doesn't make good examples to accompany this kind of statement... Or is the
statement redundant ?

Thanks,

Adam.

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Rotan Hanrahan <
rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> wrote:

>    enumerate those aspects of the mobile context that have relevance to
> web-application development. (e.g. limited connectivity, variable / limited
> data input, limited / variable screen, fragmented platforms, limited device
> processing capability...)
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> I hope you are not going to "limit" yourself to the limitations of the
> mobile context. It sounds so negative. One should also consider the positive
> aspects: access to location information, novel input mechanisms
> (pinch-touch, wheel selectors, orientation sensors etc.), operator-mediated
> authentication, more pervasive use of cameras, a multitude of browser launch
> mechanisms (e.g. via SMS-embedded URLs) and other device APIs that are
> coming on-stream. We should stop thinking of mobile Web-enabled devices as
> miniature (limited) PCs.
>
>
>
> ---Rotan.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Connors
> *Sent:* 23 May 2008 15:25
> *To:* Jeff Sonstein
> *Cc:* public-bpwg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3
>
>
>
> I think something that makes clear
> what is meant by a "Web Application"
> and what is special about them in a mobile context
> is important for this BP document
>
>
> Yeah, that was the original intent of having the 3 subsections in Scope.
> Define what the doc is trying to do "best-practices for web-applications in
> the mobile-context", then define each part of that statement in turn:
> best-practices, web-applications, mobile-context.
>
> Re-reading, I still feel that 1.4.2 does an adequate job of setting some
> context on what is a web-application (at least as far as we agreed that if
> you didn't know what cheese was, a point-by-point definition probably
> wouldn't help you very much).
>
> I take your point though on "what is special about them in a mobile
> context"... So in response to your point I'm inclined to beef up the text in
> 1.4.3 and enumerate those aspects of the mobile context that have relevance
> to web-application development. (e.g. limited connectivity, variable /
> limited data input, limited / variable screen, fragmented platforms, limited
> device processing capability...)
>
> Does that sound like it might answer the concern, or have I missed the
> point ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam.
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Jeff Sonstein <jeffs@it.rit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> okay
> so don't hit me if I am having 2nd thoughts
> about removing some of the "what do we mean by" text
> [which I think is part of what we agreed yesterday to do]...
>
> I think it is important to say something about
> what is meant by a "Web Application"
> and then to say something about
> what is different about the mobile context
>
> as of the 21st
> section 1.4.1 opened with the paragraph:
>
>  For the purposes of this document, the term "web application"
>  refers to a web page (XHTML or a variant thereof + CSS) or
>  collection of web pages delivered over HTTP which use either
>  server-side or client-side processing (e.g. javascript) to provide
>  an "application-like" experience within a web-browser. Web
>  applications are distinct from simple web content (the focus of BP1)
>  in that they include some elements of interactivity and persistent state.
>
> and section 1.4.2 has the statement:
>
>  [...] the focus of this document is to address those aspects of
>  web-application development for which there are additional,
>  non-trivial concerns associated with the mobile context.
>
> I think something that makes clear
> what is meant by a "Web Application"
> and what is special about them in a mobile context
> is important for this BP document
>
> what was there may indeed have been "too wordy"
> and I think *something* addressing these issues
> needs to be in the BP document
>
> am I missing something in my insufficient-coffee state?
>
> just my [ever-shrinking] $0.02 worth
> jeffs
>
> --
> "If the state is endowed with
>  the power to enforce virtue,
>  the men who hold that power
>  will enforce their own concepts
>  as virtuous."
> -- Frank Meyer --
> ============
>
> Jeff Sonstein
>
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/ <http://www.it.rit.edu/%7Ejxs/>
> http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/ <http://ariadne.iz.net/%7Ejeffs/>
> http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/jeffs.asc<http://ariadne.iz.net/%7Ejeffs/jeffs.asc>
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/emailDisclaimer.html<http://www.it.rit.edu/%7Ejxs/emailDisclaimer.html>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 14:50:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC