W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > January 2013

Re: "Pre-Final" Draft of Coremob - 2012 and dial-in details for telecon to advance to "Final"

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:45:58 +0000
To: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F9981AFB970564408FEB7DFCF62D44084371B559@PRN-MBX01-4.TheFacebook.com>
Thanks for your input, Giri.

See my comments inline.

On 1/29/13 5:54 PM, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com> wrote:

>Thanks to the editors for all of their work in coming up with this latest
>version.  My apologies if I am repeating comments, or raising issues that
>have already been addressed.
>-Giri Mandyam, Qualcomm Innovation Center
>General comments on the latest draft:
>1) Section 1, Introduction.  "Compile related conformance test suites."
>I realize this is simply quoting from the charter, but I think the
>charter should be slightly modified to read "Compile related conformance
>and performance test suites."

We should look at modifying the charter when we recharter the CG.

>2) Section 1.5, Aspirational nature of the document.  "quality of
>implementation" could be better defined, particularly what
>"implementation" means.  I think "implementation" should consider the
>browser + OS + CPU.

Point taken. Could you provide better wording?

>3) Section 2.4, Find the nearest subway station.  I think we should put
>in a requirement on geolocation accuracy.  Currently the Geolocation API
>spec does not provide guidance on how to implement the enableHighAccuracy
>flag.  I think that implementations that ignore this flag or do something
>unintended (e.g. use Cell ID when this flag is set and a GPS measurement
>is available) should not be considered conformant.  This however means
>adding conformance requirements to the Geolocation spec that do not exist
>as far as I can tell.

Adding normative requirements to spec is out of scope of this group and
should be handled in the relevant WG.

>4) Section 2.5, Read an online magazine.  "While on the subway, she is
>able to read the daily news, watch a video, ...".  What if the video is
>DRM protected and requires network access?  Also, I think Req. 10 should
>be applicable in this case.

The CG as a whole agreed not to tackle DRM for now.

>5) Section 2.6, View a regular Web site.  Is there an implicit
>requirement that the browser should be able to change the header User
>Agent string (i.e. to avoid retrieving the mobile version of the bank web

No. Nothing in the use case says the user agent sniffing is used to serve
mobile specific content. The mobile website could well be hosted on a
different subdomain.

>6) Section 3.4, Multimedia.  Req. 18.  Regarding the 30 fps "must"
>requirement, this is dependent on how we define "implementation" (see my
>2nd comment above) and under what conditions the fps measurement is
>taken.  Moreover, how fps is measured would need to be defined.  I think
>in practice the best you can do with this requirement is make it a

That also seems like a fair point. How about rephrasing the requirement
like so:

"It MUST be possible to smoothly draw multiple animated sprites in full
screen mode (e.g. at 30fps)."


Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 06:47:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC