[![W3C][1]][2]

# Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference

## 01 Aug 2012

[Agenda][3]

See also: [IRC log][4]

## Attendees

Present

    Andrew_Betts, Bryan_Sullivan, Dan_Sun, Jean-francois_Moy, Jo, Josh_Soref,
Kai_Fritz, Tobie_Langel, chaals, Robin_Berjon

Regrets

    Aaron_Randall, Kenneth_Auchenberg

Chair

    Jo Rabin, Robin Berjon

Scribe

    Josh_Soref

## Contents

  * [Topics][5]

    1. [Attendance][6]

    2. [Review F2F][7]

    3. [Level 1][8]

    4. [Discussion of offer by AT&T to edit Level 0 Spec][9]

    5. [AOB?][10]

  * [Summary of Action Items][11]

* * *

trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 01 August 2012

<scribe> Scribe: Josh_Soref

### Attendance

<scribe> Agenda: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
coremob/2012Jul/0056.html][3]

Jo: present, Jo, darobin, Josh_Soref, andrew_betts

... jfmoy

... bryan

... tobie

kai: Kai Fritz, vodafone

Jo: who else?

... is the w3c contact?

darobin: probably not

[ Chairs negotiate ]

### Review F2F

<Jo> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
coremob/2012Jul/0055.html][12]

Jo: the summary took 2 days to produce, which is rather long for me

... i'd like people to make sure the resolutions were recorded correctly

... particularly the after lunch resolutions on day 2

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt the draft minutes from this meeting with the
amendment that the meeting took place on 25 and 26 June not 28 and 29 June as
stated

darobin: sounds good

tobie: ian jacobs asked for an executive summary

... it would be useful for w3, for us internally, and maybe for the w3c blog

Jo: sounds reasonable

... since it is rather lengthy

**RESOLUTION: Adopt the draft minutes from this meeting with the amendment
that the meeting took place on 25 and 26 June not 28 and 29 June as stated**

<Jo> **ACTION:** Rabin to summarise the summary and post on CG blof [recorded
in [http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action01][13]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Summarise the summary and post on CG blof [on
Jo Rabin - due 2012-08-08].

<Jo> > [http://coremob.github.com/level-1/index.html][14] Current Draft Level
1

### Level 1

tobie: i'm going through the updates on the spec

... i've gone through most if not all of the actions specific to it

... there's a couple i have not done yet

... mostly because i have further questions about them

... or a bit of work to do

... but mostly i've closed the related actions

Jo: we'll step through your actions

... i've moved your actions to pending-review

... anything you'd like to raise?

tobie: not really

... i need to do some research before bringing them back to the group

... i don't want to bother the group before

Jo: anything else on level 1 current draft?

[ no ]

Jo: thanks tobie

### Discussion of offer by AT&T to edit Level 0 Spec

<Jo> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
coremob/2012Jul/0031.html][15]

Jo: AT&T offered

... to redraft level 0

<darobin> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
coremob/2012Jul/0038.html][16]

Jo: my action-2 was to propose something different about level 0

... a way that would allow it to proceed in some orderly form

... we baselined features based on Matt Kelly's list

... there's also a discussion based on Mobile Web Best Practices

<Jo> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
coremob/2012Jul/0043.html][17]

Jo: here's my action-2 + action-4

... i've joined those two things together

... i'm proposing reconsidering what level 0 is

... to focus on a small set of UCs from Matt Kelly's definitions

... i wonder if anyone has any views?

bryan: i sent to the list our intent here

... we're ok with creating a document based on a wide range of
devices/browsers

... for a defined set of features

... or taking a UC based approach

... analyze the features

... i think the UC based approach is interesting

... but i think people need information about what's available in browsers

Jo: isn't that exactly what derailed progress on Level 0 initially?

... i'd rather not capture the initial state

... but capture definitional

... the group has reached a point where we can say Level 0 is aspirational

Josh_Soref: I think that we've reached a point where calling Level Zero is
going to be a third rail

... so if someone wants to draft something they shouldn't mention level or
zero

... there are sites that list features and support on browsers

... and don't do compliance, but some sites do things like it

... while we don't have test suites that do compliance, we should defer to
other sites (e.g. caniuse.com)

<bryan> public sites e.g. caniuse provide support info inconsistently and
incompletely

Josh_Soref: it doesn't seem like a very good use of resources for us here to
do that

... and I'm okay with something aspirational or definitional, but it should be
somewhat narrow

... working from Matt Kelly's list isn't unreasonable

... but it should be limited in scope

<bryan> I do support the strategic focus either on verification or aspiration

Josh_Soref: and use meaningful names in its title

tobie: one of the mistakes we made when we announced level things

... was not to consider the audience of these documents

... we got feedback from the implementers

... who are the audience

<bryan> but we need to be clear which we are trying to achieve

<chaals> [seems that it would make more sense to spend effort providing
information so caniuse.com or whatever you like most is more accurate and
complete. It's the same work that would be required anyway]

tobie: was that they are *REALLY* not interested in documenting things we're
moving away from

... but would rather document things we're moving towards

... this is something to keep in mind when talking about level 0

... if the main target is developers

<bryan> Tobie, what does "moving away from" mean?

tobie: then produce a document like that which would make implementers less
cringy

bryan: what did you mean by "moving away from"

tobie: a document containing "EcmaScript 3"

... where implementers are moving to EcmaScript 5

... implementers are moving from HTML4 to HTML5

... that's the crux around documenting anything around the main market of
mobile devices

bryan: i think i understand what you said

... i'm not sure i get it

... as i dropped on irc

... i think the group needs to decide if it's going to document what's
supported

... or to establish aspirations

... if you're looking at aspirations, you can look at what's around the corner

... i don't think caniuse.com/browser scope

... is complete or consistent

... the methodology is extremely fragmented

... it's extremely difficult to use as a developer

... one of our main focuses is to draw that together into a place that's
automated, easy to consume

Jo: i don't think it's this group's job to repeat what's done by
browserscope/caniuse

... i'd like us to agree to move on if that's a consensus view

... it seems the group has proven by a non-existence proof

... that the baseline doesn't exist

... and to move to an aspirational thing

... defining "if it has this, this and this" then it is a mobile application
[host?]

tobie: if we're interested in giving a good picture of the world today

... this could be done by publishing the results of how well existing browsers
fair on the level 1 spec

<bryan> agree, we are not trying to replace caniuse etc, but trying to promote
consistency or agreement on what should be consistent

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: This group does not intend to reproduce the results
of Browserscope or CanIUse

tobie: if we have a good test suite, then the current state

... of browsers is whatever percentile you're interested in

... say 90% of the browsers get as results

<bryan> how do developers fill the gaps then?

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: There is no test suite below Level 1

<bryan> above the 85-90%

jfmoy: i agree with bryan

... on these concerns

... i'm surprised with discussions on caniuse / similar tools

... the results they provide is far from being

... i don't have a good level of trust in them

... we found discrepancies when comparing with our own internal testing

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3: Level 0 (if it exists at all) exists as a
definition only what it means to be a mobile web app

darobin: as a data point

<darobin> [http://w3c-test.org/framework/app/report/matrix-maker][18]

darobin: matrix maker is being built

... so you could pick browsers, specifications

... to give you a matrix of support for various browsers/specifications

... and you'll be able to save that report

... it ought to be available by the end of the month

<bryan> that will be useful, and CoreMob could then based upon that data issue
some statement as to the baseline

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: This group does not intend to reproduce the results
of Browserscope or CanIUse

<bryan> +1

<darobin> +1

<jfmoy> +1

dan: i'm blocked from irc

Jo: have you tried [http://irc.w3.org/][19] ?

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: There is no test suite below Level 1

**RESOLUTION: This group does not intend to reproduce the results of
Browserscope or CanIUse**

<bryan> but based upon some testing somewhere, will the group establish what t
thinks *is* the current state of the "Core Mobile Web" support?

Jo: bryan, no, i don't think it will do that

... it might define what it means to be a mobile web application

bryan: and explain why/when it matters

Jo: i think defining the difference between a mobile web site and a mobile web
application

bryan: defining the state/aspiration

... the output needs to be something that is useful for developers

... if things aren't supported, but are filled through libraries

... that has a place in the landscape

Jo: i think that could be discussed on list

bryan: i think that should be noted

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: This group will not produce a test suite that is
below the aspirational Level 1

<bryan> how polyfills play a role in current levels of support across
browsers, and that they are a fact of the "mobile web" experience for
developers

dan: for level 0, if we only have documentation

... are we recommending developers use browserscope/caniuse?

Jo: we're saying we want to complete a range of features across a range of
browsers

... the point of the group is to look forwards

... maybe slightly in the future being december

... any test suite that would cover level 1 will cover the features that are
important today

<bryan> I think one can only look forward and make sense of what is seen, by
knowing the current point from which the observation is made, e.g. is the
camera ahead or behind us?

Jo: aside from a discussion of what is in a level 0 test suite

dan: will we include all the specific features from level 0 into level 1?

Jo: i'm not sure how one would do a test suite of HTTP

tobie: i've already folded all the non-controversial parts of level 0 into
level 1

... i did that before the f2f

<bryan> Folding level 0 into level 1 is I think a good compromise approach, if
we want only to look forwrd

dan: what do you mean by the controversial stuff

<bryan> appcache etc?

tobie: there were a number of features included in the early draft of level 0

... some accidentally

... which made a lot of people very unhappy

... these included things that were encumbered by patents

... and vendor prefixed css features

dan: for prefixed features

... i thought we agreed to test nonprefixed

Jo: we're going off topic

... we agreed at the F2F to only focus on spec'd features

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2: This group will not produce a test suite that is
below the aspirational Level 1

Jo: i'd like to return to the conversation

<tobie> +1

<darobin> +1

Josh_Soref: +1

**RESOLUTION: This group will not produce a test suite that is below the
aspirational Level 1**

<bryan> +1 given that level 1 is as described by Tobie

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3: Level 0 (if it exists at all) exists as a
definition only what it means to be a mobile web app

<tobie> bryan: [http://coremob.github.com/level-1/index.html][14]

Jo: we define a mobile application

<bryan> thanks, I will review the current level 1 spec

Jo: as something which has a degree of autonomy

... and doesn't require online access for extended periods in order to do
whatever it does

... whatever came out of it would be a minimal spec

... http capable, bootstrap from the web

... is it meaningful to call that level 0?

<bryan> I think it's a useful definition

dan: i think that's too minimal

Jo: what i'm proposing is that we review the list of features that matt kelly
came up with

... if it can do this, you can't call it a mobile web app

tobie: there's been a notion of dropping leveling

<chaals> [Why not let Bryan have a go and see if he writes something that
convinces us? It might be quicker for everyone else) than deciding a priori
whether there is something people might accept and value]

tobie: since we don't have a level 0, and don't have a notion of a level 2

... let's release level 1 as "Core Mob ..." or "Mobile ..."

... and then see if we want to do things as yearly snapshots

... or levels

<bryan> I would like to see some results from whatever testing is done, either
in the Testing IG or elsewhere, factored into the discussion on defining "what
a mobile web app is" as what is supported clearly limits what an app "can be"

tobie: maybe later have a modern web app definition

... have something distinct from level 1

Josh_Soref: +1

dan: i agree

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:Rename proposed definition doc as "What is a Web App"
drop the whole idea of Level 0 and rename Level 1 as ScoreMob 2012

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:Rename proposed definition doc as "What is a Web App"
drop the whole idea of Level 0 and rename Level 1 as CoreMob 2012

<darobin> +1

<dan> +1

Jo: any objections to dropping level 0?

<bryan> +1 (sorry, don't want to belabor a difficult discussion, the group
should move on)

Josh_Soref: +1 from me for dropping it

**RESOLUTION: Rename proposed definition doc as "What is a Web App" drop the
whole idea of Level 0 and rename Level 1 as CoreMob 2012**

Jo: is there support for doing a small definitional document on what is a web
app?

... bryan, would you volunteer to do it?

... you volunteered for something different

<bryan> we will have opportunity to do what is needed, once we have the data
to do so - any document prior to that would be preliminary

<andrew_betts> +1 to the need for a clearer understanding of what a 'web app'
is.

<Jo> **ACTION:** Sullivan to draft a chapter outline of "What is a Web App?"
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action02][20]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Draft a chapter outline of "What is a Web App?"
[on Bryan Sullivan - due 2012-08-08].

Jo: we won't have time to do action bashing

### AOB?

Jo: three things to discuss

... 1) shall we have another call in 2 weeks' time?

jfmoy: I would prefer a month

+1

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Further meeting in 1 month

**RESOLUTION: Further meeting in 1 month**

<Jo> **ACTION:** Jo to arrange September call [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action03][21]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Arrange September call [on Jo Rabin - due
2012-08-08].

<bryan> jo, please send me what you described as the basic characteristics of
a "mobile web app", and we will flesh it out

Jo: 2) noting the dates of the f2f are Oct 2-3, with logistics to follow, any
further questions? I'll circulate details

... AOB?

... then let us thanks the FT

<Jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Coremob thanks the FT for hosting the voice channel
for this call

<dan> +1

**RESOLUTION: Coremob thanks the FT for hosting the voice channel for this
call**

[Adjourned]

<Jo> [Following the adjournment co-Chair realised that he'd been dreadfully
rude in not thanking the Scribe]

## Summary of Action Items

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Jo to arrange September call [recorded in
[http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action03][21]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Rabin to summarise the summary and post on CG blof
[recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action01][13]]

**[NEW]** **ACTION:** Sullivan to draft a chapter outline of "What is a Web
App?" [recorded in [http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-
minutes.html#action02][20]]


[End of minutes]

* * *

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [scribe.perl][22] version 1.135 ([CVS
log][23])

$Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $

   [1]: http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home

   [2]: http://www.w3.org/

   [3]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0056.html

   [4]: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-irc

   [5]: #agenda

   [6]: #item01

   [7]: #item02

   [8]: #item03

   [9]: #item04

   [10]: #item05

   [11]: #ActionSummary

   [12]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0055.html

   [13]: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action01

   [14]: http://coremob.github.com/level-1/index.html

   [15]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0031.html

   [16]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0038.html

   [17]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jul/0043.html

   [18]: http://w3c-test.org/framework/app/report/matrix-maker

   [19]: http://irc.w3.org/

   [20]: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action02

   [21]: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/01-coremob-minutes.html#action03

   [22]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

   [23]: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/