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

Re: Are features implemented or to be implemented? (Comments on the charter)

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluckco@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:57:04 +0800
Message-ID: <4F4F8E40.4030804@gmail.com>
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
CC: Core Mobile Web Platform CG <public-coremob@w3.org>
(12/03/01 17:50), Tobie Langel wrote:
> [snip]
>> This seems to indicate that a "feature" is something that's already
>> widely implemented by the browser vendors. However, this part
>>   # All normative content will be specified exclusively by reference to
>>   # the original standard defining the feature. Additional non-normative 
>>   # implementation guidance may be included.
>> seems to indicate that we are looking at new "features" the Core Mobile
>> Web Platform needs.
> I think you're misreading this. What it means is that it is not the role
> of the CG to write specs for new features.

I am just pointing out that I can't tell whether "features" as described
in the charter are in future tense of in the present tense.

>> So, are we trying to compile a handbook for new
>> developers so that they can use HTML5 as a platform for mobile
>> applications or are we trying to prioritize new features for browser
>> vendors? Or are we doing both and this depends on the "level" we are at?
>> I think this should be clarified.
> Well, both really. There's a need to describe the current state of the
> world, as there is a need to improve it.

That's good to know, although it'll be better if the charter clarifies
this and perhaps tries to answer the following:

* What will be the ratio of features that are not yet implemented to all
features listed in a specification produced by this group?
* How is the ratio related to the level of specification we are at? (By
the way, do we do different levels at the same time just like how the
CSS Working Group works?)

>> I came to this mailing list after reading Brendan Eich's post entitled
>> "Community-Prioritized Web Standards" but I don't see the word
>> "prioritize" in the charter, so I am now a bit confused.
> It's right there, the first Goal of the CG at the top of the charter:
> "Agree on core features developers can depend on."

Well, "priority"(not used in the charcter), "implementation guideline",
etc. are words that explicitly indicate the future, while "depend on",
"rely on", "deployed" seem to indicate the present. The charter now
conflates the two and makes it difficult to tell what this group is
trying to do.

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 14:57:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:44 UTC