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

Charter Comments

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:41:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4E2B0D.9030603@nokia.com>
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, public-coremob@w3.org
On 2/28/12 2:13 PM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:
>   http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/2012/02/28/charter/

Hi Tobie, All,

Some quick comments on the deliverables ...

#1 Specs - I agree with Marcos it's somewhat presumptuous to propose 
specs as a solution when the CG has not (AFAIK) agreed on the problem 
statement(s). If I understand correctly the philosophy behind the `ring` 
architecture (and I certainly may not because I don't recall seeing a 
definition of the rings nor the criteria for a feature being in a 
specific ring), this seems a bit like the (arguably failed) approach the 
MWI took by defining a LCD that resulted in some "mobile ghettos". (I 
distinctly recall some devices capable of handling "street HTML" being 
served some crappy mobile profile stuff where the stuff conformed to the 
MWI BP spec.) Let's please not repeat that mistake.

#2 Test suite - it's good to see any initiative identify test cases as a 
priority. It seems to me the most effective use of the CG's testing 
resources for the specs within the CG's interest, would be to directly 
contribute to existing test suites rather than for the CG to create its 
own test suite(s). Additionally, if there are test suite gaps for specs 
of interest, the CG's testing resources should be directed to the 
relevant WG. [For example, see WebApps' "Testing" column in 
<http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus> for gaps in WebApps' 
test suites e.g. File API spec.] Let's please not duplicate testing 
resources.

#3 Spec gap analysis - good idea!

-Cheers, AB
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 13:42:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:46 UTC