- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:36:38 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
On Apr 1, 2012, at 17:54 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > I think we might have an terminological or ideological misunderstanding here. In the doc, you initially start out by saying "we need these bits of HTML", but then start mandating full support for full specs. This doesn't get to the core of the problem: even if you "support" a spec, the support may be poor. For example, SVG may be supported by a mobile browser, but it may perform really badly and so making it unusable by developers: hence, it complies to Core Mob, but you don't win anything that improves the platform for developers. If it's supported poorly then it sucks. But how are we to test that it's supported well if we don't know that it needs to be supported in the first place? > It would be great if we could document that list of apps. Having said that, aren't 86% of the top 200 free apps (top 20, across 10 categories) already using a Webview on Android? [1]. If so, is that not indicative that the platform is doing pretty well? If you just want WebKit, the platform is doing better than if you include beyond that. But even that is fragmented (wrapped WebViews can benefit from shims provided by the wrapper). And then you get a world of WebKit. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:37:08 UTC