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

Re: Rough first draft of Level 0

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:30:26 +0000
To: "jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com" <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com>, "robin@berjon.com" <robin@berjon.com>
CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB99162C.730E3%tobie@fb.com>
On 3/28/12 5:57 PM, "jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com"
<jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com> wrote:

>* Codecs are evil but I think their support must be mentioned. It is
> good as a developer to be sure that the video/audio format you use is
>going to be widely supported. We have seen with the recent experience of
> Mozilla and Firefox Mobile that they have been pushed to announce a
>future support of H264.

We're still debating how to mention codecs without encumbering the spec
with patents. Maybe non-normatively as guidance to implementors?
  
>* Quite surprised to see some platform specific meta tags in the
>level 0 as the introduction states that the document is not platform
>centric, but web centric. Also, I agree that these tags are useful and I
> would welcome their inclusion in other platforms but ring 0 is supposed
> to be the current state. Would not it be more coherent to put them in
>the ring 1 if we decided to include them?

Vendor-prefixed Meta tags were included by accident. We're hoping to get
something like AppConfig included in Level 1 instead.
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 17:31:07 UTC

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