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

Re: Network Information Use Cases

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:27:02 +0000
To: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC2D833E.9F22%tobie@fb.com>
On 7/19/12 8:21 AM, "Jo Rabin" <jo@linguafranca.org> wrote:

>On 18 Jul 2012, at 23:16, Tobie Langel wrote:
>
>> On 7/18/12 8:20 PM, "Jo Rabin" <jo@linguafranca.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> What we're trying to do is answer the question:
>>> 
>>> "Are the valid use cases for use of Network Information API in scope
>>>for
>>> CoreMob Level 1?"
>>> 
>>> Raised as ISSUE-31 [2] in Tracker
>>> 
>>> In order to answer that we need a) To know what the valid use cases
>>>are,
>>> and b) What is in scope for CoreMob Level 1.
>> 
>> Use cases shouldn't only be valid, they should also be compelling. We've
>> already rejected specs which had much more compelling use cases than
>>these
>> (e.g. WebGL).
>> 
>
>Fair point. Digging through the archives as I have been over the last
>period, I find that Matt Kelly's ACTION-3 [1] "Circulate his research on
>types of apps requiring types of features"
>was mis-filed under my name. I suggest that the "compellingness" of the
>use cases be judged against Matt's response to that action.
>[1]https://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/actions/3
>
>>> Assuming that the valid use cases are documented correctly and
>>>completely
>>> on Tobie's Wiki Page[3] then all we have to decide is are they in scope
>>> for Coremob Level 1 and the answer is ...
>>> 
>>> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Support for Network Information API is in Scope
>>>for
>>> Coremob Level 1.
>> 
>> I'd like to see real, compelling use cases before we make this spec a
>> requirement. I'd also like to make sure vendors outside of Mozilla are
>> planning to implement it in the forceable future.
>
>OK, planned implementation in the near term is a good test too. Though I
>think that since Level 1 is aspirational, and is intended to encourage
>implementation and conformance, it's a weaker test than being required
>for the classes of apps that Level 1 is intended to cover - per the above.
>
>Hands up please if your organisation is planning to implement any time
>soon.
>
>Let's see what happens in the following discussion before deciding
>between the above PROPOSED RESOLUTION and the following:
>
>PROPOSED RESOLUTION: While we see valid use cases for Network Information
>API we don't think that those use cases are sufficiently compelling for
>Level 1 target applications and so resolve to defer to a future level.

LGTM.

--tobie
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 07:27:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:47 UTC