- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:06:11 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-coremob@w3.org
On Apr 11, 2012, at 20:39 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > I hope this clarifies why I think the current assumption is only relevant if this group is looking at a "US/Europe Wide Web". For values of US/Europe that include Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore but exclude Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, or Belarus. Inflammatory implications aside, I don't think that you can usefully make a geographic characterisation here. As described before, this group aims to improve interoperability in a given part of the ecosystem (where we're seeing specific problems), with the natural consequence that interoperability will be improved across the spectrum by making it easier to target content throughout the board. Yes, that part of the ecosystem is more present in some parts of the world than others. That is true of all efforts that attempt to improve things in any segment. This isn't about the EU/US Web any more than MWBP is about the Saharan Web. > 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. It's a good thing that's not what we're doing then! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:06:41 UTC