W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Rough first draft of Level 0

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:58:12 +0000
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB9E33CC.74182%tobie@fb.com>
On 4/1/12 4:21 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>I think many people will be confused, as I was, by the use of RFC2119
>terminology. Can we change is to show stats instead?

I'm not sure I understand what makes a de facto standard a bad candidate
for specification. Can you elaborate? (I mean, outside of the obvious
issues in Coremob level 0 like proprietary APIs, patent-encumbered codecs,
etc. which are orthogonal issues.)

>>Yes, that is the purpose of Cormob level 1, which will go in the details
>>of the features missing to build around 90% of the top 100 "native"
>>applications on the Mobile Web Platform.
>
>That's excellent to hear, Tobie. This is not captured very well anywhere
>and I think it should be (hence my little skeptical outburst).

I tried to give context in the wiki. It's still a work in progress atm.

>After a million failed efforts of this sort, I really just want to see
>this "done right" (tm) for once. I think we have the right people to do
>it right here - but right now I fear we've already started down the wrong
>path with the way level 0 is being written.

I don't think form is going to make or break this effort. Shipping
implementations will. That said, nothing is set in stone at this point.

--tobie
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 14:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:46 UTC