- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:48:00 +0000
- To: Joe Cincotta <joe@pixolut.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
- CC: developers <developers@pixolut.com>
On 4/12/12 2:28 AM, "Joe Cincotta" <joe@pixolut.com> wrote: >This is my first post on this group, so apologies for rushing in like a >bull in a china shop... No worries. We've all gone through this. >I think Ringmark as it stands is just missing the point. It's a nice >idea, but it's an inconsistent abstraction of something that is already >inconsistently implemented. All it serves to do is make things less clear >for developers. This is not to say that the idea of creating a >standardised benchmark platform using coremob is wrong, just abstracting >the feature groups in to rings (or arbitrarily clustering them at all). The rings Ringmark is built on are Facebook's best attempt at paralleling the different spec levels Coremob is planning to release (see the wiki[1] for more details on those). So this isn't an arbitrary clustering at all. I saw Robin answered the rest of your questions, so I'll leave it at this. --- [1]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Main_Page
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:48:33 UTC