- From: François Daoust <francois@joshfire.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:50:27 +0200
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Cc: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Matt Kelly <mk@fb.com>, Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl@gmail.com>, Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Hi Tobie, all, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote: [...] > In case there's ambiguity around what a "modern mobile web application" > is, the Mobile Web Application Best Practices Rec[4] has a definition > which fits our intent and purpose very well: > > "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 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 locally executable elements of interactivity > and persistent state." > > I suggest we stick with this definition (well, replacing the XHTML bit by > HTML). Note that it clearly rules out Opera mini on the ground of both > it's strictly proxied architecture and its sparse feature set[5]. I don't think the "proxied" nature of browsers such as Opera Mini is a valid reason to exclude them. The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group that produced the definition you mentioned used to consider proxy-based browsers as "distributed user agents" (see for instance the Scope section in the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies Note [1]). From an external perspective, they are Web browsers as any other regular Web browser. I'm fine with the feature set argument since that is precisely what this Level 0 and Level 1 are to specify. Francois. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/#sec-scope
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 15:51:01 UTC