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

Re: Rough first draft of Level 0

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:30:23 +0100
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Cc: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <71FB6BF929E34F419072BB59B55D4B4F@marcosc.com>


On Sunday, 1 April 2012 at 17:48, Tobie Langel wrote:

> We can't build an app for every non-working use case and expect
> implementors to run them all to improve their browsers. But we certainly
> need perf benchmarks and quality of implementation guidance for
> implementors, both backed by use-cases.

There is no need to - you have already done it! We have you and the FB crew here already: you run one of the most used and awesome services in the world across all platforms. Just show us what is broken and what you can't do in the FB app on browsers. The same applies with the Zynga crew and other service providers here.  

And if you really want to push the envelope, branch the FB app and show us how awesome it could be if feature X was added or if feature Y ran faster. In other words, "make the application, or prototype, the specification."   
> > It would be great if we could document that list of apps. Having said
> > that, aren't 86% of the top 200 free apps (top 20, across 10 categories)
> > already using a Webview on Android? [1]. If so, is that not indicative
> > that the platform is doing pretty well?
>  
>  
> Think that data would be relevant if these apps were just an embedded
> webview. In truth, they're not, they're using webviews for part of the app
> but not for all of it. It's the missing parts we're aiming to pinpoint
> with Coremob Level 1.

Sounds good.   
> > Instead, it might be better to select some really innovative applications
> > that are pushing the envelope (i.e., things likely not in the Top 100 -
> > but are considered "ground breaking" or pushing a platform to the limit).
>  
> Heart-fully disagree. This is exactly what has been done so far and what
> gave us a platform that does great 3DŠ and super slow 2D while more than
> 90% of the top games (free, paid, grossing) on iOS are, in fact, 2D or
> isometric games. Before tackling ground-breaking apps, let's target more
> mundane ones.

Yes, I see what you mean… I agree in general - specially if demonstratively, we can't do the top 100. Specifically to the games side of things, I think we should coordinate with the HTML5 Games CG (they've already gathered requirements and done a bunch of hard work on this).   
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 22:30:57 UTC

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