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

Re: Ringmark is now open source

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:58:36 +0200
Cc: public-coremob@w3.org
Message-Id: <F839995F-634C-42A7-AC39-BCC642A9A3C4@berjon.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
On Apr 5, 2012, at 01:56 , Marcos Caceres 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?

I don't know  why is the sky blue? Seriously, that's the goal of this group, and it has been discussed before.

> 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).   

Not, it certainly is not up to this group to decide what Opera can and can't do, but then again that's not anything anyone has even suggested. It is however rather easy to see that Opera Mini doesn't run modern apps (yet).

> 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)? 

One thing that B2G has shown is that Web technology makes it possible to target lower-end devices than for instance Android with equivalent functionality. This shows we can bring a better experience to a greater number. I think that's far better than trying to put everyone on the lowest common denominator as you seem to be suggesting.

So yes, this excludes most if not all feature phones as viable platforms for these applications. But  again  we have MWBP for that. And if MWBP is not good enough, then someone ought to revive the MWBP WG (and explain why there is interest in working in that area now even though it was shut down in 2010 due to lack of interest).

I reckon you might come across as more constructive  or for that matter, constructive at all  if you dropped the grandstanding "rich and privileged" grandiloquence. Looking through this entire thread I can't even figure out what it is that you're proposing in concrete terms. Is there any fresh meat beneath the rant? If so let's see it.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:59:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:45 UTC