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

Re: Ringmark is now open source

From: <claudio.riva@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:37:01 +0000
To: <w3c@marcosc.com>, <tobie@fb.com>
CC: <thaddee.tyl@gmail.com>, <mk@fb.com>, <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>, <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBA30CE8.7AA6%claudio.riva@nokia.com>
Hello, 

I agree with Marcos and this is was my first comment when I saw the
capabilities required to be part of Ring-0. The bar seems to be too high
and ignores the fact the majority of mobile users have handsets below
Ring-0. Of course, we can ignore them but this won't help the web
development community.

Ring-0 should contain the bare minimum features for creating non-trivial
web apps. I can create useful web apps without video and CSS3 Transitions,
but not without web storage, application cache, json, media queries etc.
Even 2D canvas and selected CSS3 capabilities could be easily supported by
low-end devices, so the bar for the ring-0 doesn't need to be lowered that
much.

Let's take a framework like Jquery Mobile, it does a great job in
supporting the graceful degradation of the experience (but not
functionality) from A-grade browser to C-graded browsers. I can run the
same web app on iPhone and Opera Mini, and while the experience is
different (no shadows, no animations, no ajax navigation) it's still
usable. So, I agree with Marcos that also C-graded browsers (like Opera
Mini, Nokia Browser, UC Browser etc) are a legitimate target for mobile
web apps.

I think for the benefit of the web developers community we should set the
level-0 requirements slightly lower than where it is today

claudio
 

On 4/5/12 2:56 AM, "ext Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
>On Thursday, 5 April 2012 at 00:13, Tobie Langel wrote:
>
>> Not one on which you can build web applications on par with a native
>> experience.
>
>Perhaps - but why is that even an expectation? And I don't think it's up
>to this group to decide what Opera can and can't do (innovation could
>drive Opera mini to provide a native-like experiences that far exceed
>CoreMob-0 - don't just discount Opera offhand).
>> Don't get me wrong: it's a fantastic browser. It's just not a reasonable
>> target for web apps.
>
>(ouch! I think I just heard Charles wake up:) )
> 
>With all due respect, it's still used by +20% of the mobile web? There is
>something deeply contradictory and slightly troubling here. You make it
>sound like the "mobile web" you are envisioning is one where services are
>only targeted at the rich and privileged (i.e., the small number of
>people with enough money to afford an iPhone or Android device)?
>
>If so, I think this position needs to be revised because it is divisive
>and bordering on elitist in that it it says that "if you can't afford an
>iPhone or an Android phone, then you can't be part of the Mobile Web (and
>you are not good enough to meet the base level to build a web app)".
>
>Thus, I believe Opera Mini is a legitimate target for Web Apps (remember
>that Opera Mobile is only banned from the iPhone because of Apple's
>anti-competitive practices - that could change tomorrow for all we know).
>I also don't believe it's up to this group to exclude Opera (or even all
>the people that will continue to access the Web on Nokia phones). If
>those devices don't today do Ring-0, they might do so tomorrow: that is
>the point of Ring-0 (or at least it should be: to drive a baseline for
>innovation and raise that bar).
>
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 12:05:25 UTC

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