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

Re: How many browsers matter Re: Ringmark is now open source

From: <andrea.trasatti@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:11:54 +0000
To: <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E80F9376-C55A-4D49-8B54-F4431F612850@nokia.com>
On Apr 11, 2012, at 2:39 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:28:24 +0200, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:
>> Note that it clearly rules out Opera mini on the ground of both
>> it's strictly proxied architecture and its sparse feature set[5].
> 
> Not at all. Which is where the problem lies. Opera Mini is capable of running all kinds of things that are written in HTML etc, including elements of interactivity and persistent state to produce an application-like experience.

For what it's worth, this definition also does not rule out the Nokia browser running on Series 40 devices, which comes with the ability to download Web apps packaged with the W3C widget packaging rec (allowing you to store files locally) and supports a minimal JavaScript interface that lets you create Web content that behaves like a Web app. Although it does not support CSS3 transitions, the JavaScript library lets you do things like animate a page to slide in for example. The "one-page-app" model works quite well.


>> ---
>> 
>> Regarding the description of Coremob level 0 as a the intersection in
>> feature set of the Android 2.2 Froyo and iOS5 default browsers:
>> 
>> As mentioned in the wiki[6]:
>> 
>>    "Coremob level 0 is a de facto spec, aiming to describe the current
>> state of the Mobile Web Platform. It is based off of market shares of the
>> default browsers on deployed handsets. For the purpose of simplicity, this was roughly identified as the intersection in feature set of the
>> Android 2.2 Froyo and iOS5 default browsers."
> 
> Which I think is a poor judgement, unless the scope of this group is far more restrictive than I had understood it to be.
> 
>> ...wide deployment is an
>> indicative criterion for inclusion in a spec. This makes even more sense
>> for a de facto spec. So including a feature on the basis of it's reach
>> seems very reasonable, [...]
>> 
>> It's also worth noting that, with Opera mini out of the picture (and
>> accounting for the vast majority of Opera's traffic[8]), the mobile
>> browser landscape is clearly dominated by the Android and iOS default
>> browsers[9].
> 
> Using statcounter - which is not that great but not bad...
> 
> With Opera out of the picture Android/iOS have about 2/3 of North America [c0] and Europe [c1]. In Oceania iOS has 2/3, which your accounting seems to suggest makes it the only serious player. In Africa [c3], even discounting Opera which is actually far and away the leader and therefore highly relevant to any attempt to market into Africa, Nokia would be the majority player that makes Android and iPhone both irrelevant.
> 
> The picture in Asia is much more mixed. Opera clearly dominates, and with Nokia they share the majority of the market. The next biggest player is UCWeb, and Android and iOS between them are more or less irrelevant. This picture is far from clear - but digging further shows that the assumption is not true for the so-called BRIC countries, nor South Africa.
> 
> [c0] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-na-monthly-201204-201204-bar
> [c1] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-eu-monthly-201204-201204-bar
> [c2] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-oc-monthly-201204-201204-bar
> [c3] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-af-monthly-201204-201204-bar
> [c4] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-as-monthly-201204-201204-bar
> 
>> Hope this helps clarify the situation and allows us to move on.
> 
> I hope this clarifies why I think the current assumption is only relevant if this group is looking at a "US/Europe Wide Web".
> 
> That is a legitimate choice, but it is certainly not reflected in the philosophy statement that apparently guides the ring-zero spec, nor was it what I imagined the group would be doing when it was announced.
> 
> I would personally prefer the group to take on the more substantial challenge of being relevant to the world, rather than withdraw to being a de facto documentation team for a couple of companies who could easily do that for themselves.

I am not going to question what is the scope of this group, but I think that the rules that define HOW the group has chosen the reference devices and browsers MUST be defined more clearly. ring 0 is about current state, ring 1 and later is about shaping the future. Let's agree on the ground and then we can discuss where we go next.

Andrea
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 19:12:30 UTC

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