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

Re: Shall we shelve Level Zero?

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 15:42:01 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBC71B16.80AA4%tobie@fb.com>
On 5/2/12 4:24 PM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

>Dear all,
>one thing that I've been wondering about concerning Level Zero (and that
>has been mentioned in discussions threads) is whether we need it at all
>(as a completely precise and defined document that is). The primary
>motivation behind Zero was to capture the existing situation for the
>usage of the Web that this group is concerned with (as described here[0])
>so as to provide a foundation atop which to build Level One.
>But documenting that status is both work-intensive and to a given degree
>somewhat contentious. At the same time, it may not be useful in helping
>developers (who already know that it's a mess) or implementers (who
>already know what they're missing to reach that level and who are already
>working on it if they don't already match). The question is therefore:
>can't we just assume that we have *rough* consensus on what we have (or
>are about to have) and simply work on agreeing on the set of features for
>Level One?
>It's an open question, I don't presume to know the better answer.

I've been wondering about this too. The issues I'm seeing is that we'll
just be shifting a lot of the content of Level 0 to Level 1. Two examples
come to mind, there are plenty of other ones:

1) Geo-location: I've been asked countless times about why it wasn't
specified in Level 1 already, so if Level 0 is out, we'll have to add it
to Level 1.
2) CSS3 fonts: support is required by WOFF, which is a level 1
requirement. Here again, we'll have to add it in to Level 1 if level 0 is

All in all, I feel most of the issues with level 0 are around:

- vendor prefixes,
- non-RF technology,
- the wording of how the specs were chosen for level 0 (intersection of
iOS and Android browsers).

I have three follow-up questions:

1) Anything I missed out of that offending list?

2) Is there any other spec mentioned in either of level 0 or 1 which is a
blocker for anyone?

3) Is where the two levels are split an issue? i.e., would consensus be
easier to obtain if level 0 had less features, or on the contrary, more?
Or should we even combine both levels into one?

Lets keep Ringmark out of this discussion for now, as whatever the group
decides for the Coremob levels, Ringmark will follow.


Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:46 UTC