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

Re: Rough first draft of Level 0

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:47:39 +0200
Cc: public-coremob@w3.org, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C8A0700B-C286-4576-B860-1EF099E075EC@berjon.com>
To: <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com> <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com>
Hi Jean-Franηois,

On Mar 28, 2012, at 17:57 , <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com> <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com> wrote:
> I have a few points I would like to comment before forking the repository and propose changes:
> 	• 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.

Yes, it's definitely useful for developers to have something they can rely on, preferably without having to produce multiple encodings all the time. I guess that H264 might be the Realpolitik option :)

The primary question here is of the legal variety. Making a normative requirement on non-RF technology is not an option on Rec-track documents produced by a WG; but I am unclear as to what the status of that is for a CG report that does not define new technology to start with. I've copied Ian here as he's the authority on this (Ian, context is http://coremob.github.com/level-0/).

> 	• 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?

I included those tentatively because they have a somewhat intermediary status. They are definitely useful, and while they clearly include a vendor name some are also proposed as meta extensions as part of the WHATWG process: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions (and I presume others could be). My questions here are:

    • Do platforms other than iOS support these, or plan to?
    • When we do get some AppConfig manifest, do we want to grandfather these in?

But I certainly have no qualms removing these — overall in writing up the draft I've deliberately erred on the side of inclusion. It's much easier to notice something that was included which we want to remove than it is to remember something excluded that we actually want to include :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 09:48:12 UTC

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