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

Re: Shall we shelve Level Zero?

From: Jason Grigsby <jason@cloudfour.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:17:20 -0700
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-Id: <62A594E8-C8B7-4649-B689-E86092A2DCC8@cloudfour.com>
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
On May 2, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:

> 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?

Iíve been watching the discussion, but havenít chimed in until now. To me, there is a fourth more important question which Robin alluded to. What advantage do you gain with Level 0? Especially when it is defined to document what is the current status of mobile browsers.

Iíd rather see something that documents where all the browsers should be heading towards instead of documenting where they currently are. A lot of the concerns would go away. Who cares if Opera Mini doesnít support something that Android and iOS do right now? The point would be that this is where Opera Mini needs to go and hopefully Opera can make it happen.

Whether that means redefining level 0 to be a target instead of documenting the current state or that means doing away with level 0 altogether is a question best left for the people who are deeper in the guts of the spec. But my two cents are to ditch trying to document what the current state is and focus on documenting where browsers should be heading.

-Jason

--

Jason Grigsby
+1 (503) 290-1090 o
+1 (503) 502-7211 m
jason@cloudfour.com
http://cloudfour.com
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:18:38 UTC

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