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

RE: Are We Done Yet? [Was: Re: Minutes - Coremob 2012 is "final"]

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:31:53 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C3510954892@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>
Hi Art,

I was just reflecting on the impact that CoreMob 2012 had on our approach to test focus, and pointing to where that specific followup seems to be moving to.

But the larger question of the value of the CoreMob CG, and should it continue, touches on these ongoing needs, which IMO are unfulfilled and ongoing, e.g. as I indicated in [1].

1) Developers need details: CoreMob 2012 took the simplistic approach on feature priorities, of referencing specs as a whole, which is fine for smaller specs but for something like HTML5 with hundreds of discrete features is IMO too broad a brush. We need to really consider Mobile use cases for HTML5 features in detail, to provide realistic/useful guidance to developers about what Mobile Web Apps really need and can use - meaning the state of usability as of 2012 in terms of support by implementations. For example there are several HTML5 features that simply don't work on mobile devices yet. The credibility of the CoreMob effort (and this type of effort overall in W3C) hinges on full disclosure.

2) The importance of the Mobile Web App focus is not over: CoreMob 2012 was a first step, which still needs to be validated (thru testing), refined (e.g. as in (1)), and evolved, as Mobile Web Apps are continually breaking into (or have new opportunities to) new feature territory. 

3) A globally focused CG of this type is a more effective collaboration and communication tool: W3C needs such a CG to continue this work, otherwise we risk again not serving developers as we rush to our corners of the W3C and create myriad little CGs that developers can't find or follow. We need a central place where market stakeholders can continue to discuss/develop and promote this very important profile of the web.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2013Jan/0018.html

Bryan Sullivan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:35 AM
To: public-coremob@w3.org
Subject: Are We Done Yet? [Was: Re: Minutes - Coremob 2012 is "final"]

Reading Bryan's summary of the next steps for testing touches on the 
more general topic of -> so, what, if anything, remains for this CG.

The charter identifies three work areas:

1. Test suites - it seems to me that if people are interested in OWP 
testing, the efficient thing to do isto do as Bryan indicates below and 
contribute directly to the testing efforts already started.

2. UCs and Requirements for other groups - with the proliferation of 
CGs, it's not clear there is a need for an umbrella group like CoreMob. 
If people want to discuss some technology, they can simply create a CG 
and go for it. (Good example/model: the work done by Marcos, Mat, et al. 
in the Responsive Images CG pushing their UCs/Reqs to the HTML WG).

3. Specs - the 2012 profile is done. It helped provide input into the 
W3C's OWP testing effort and apparently provided a good discussion at 
last year's MWC. But is there really any need for YA profile? If people 
want to actually make a difference re broad deployment of the OWP spec 
stack, it seems like it would be more efficient to directly contribute 
to Webkit and/or Gecko or to lobby your closed browser vendor.

Anyhow, it appears to me the Goals in the charter have been met and 
thedeliverables are complete. As such, when is this CG going to close?

-Thanks, AB

On 1/30/13 8:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> Hi mobsters,
> During the Web Testing meeting this week, I described how we (AT&T) are attempting to follow up to CoreMob 2012 with analysis of the tests supporting verification of CoreMob 2012 conformance, as indicated in CoreMob 2012 as "part of subsequent work of the group". Whether this work remains in CoreMob or shifts to the general Web testing effort in W3C, is TBD, e.g. per the discussion in the Web Testing meeting held yesterday.
> Nonetheless, we (AT&T) are moving forward with this assessment and I wanted to let the CoreMob CG know so that the interested members can participate as needed. For now, the continuing work in this vein will be organized on the Web Testing IG list public-test-infra@w3.org, and thru its wiki etc.
> As noted in my input to the meeting (http://blsaws.github.com/slides/20130129-WebTesting.html), we intend to use the effort resulting in CoreMob 2012 to shape our test priorities for 2013, e.g. to close the gaps in the available W3C etc tests.  This is in the interest of gaining more specific value from CoreMob 2012 (other than being an aspirational guide to what "mobile web apps need"). Our current approach to this effort is to focus on CoreMob requirements that are (in a test support sense) unmet or under-met (in which we include existing/automatable tests which are currently unautomated).
> While one of the goals of the Web testing effort is to avoid us having to individually do the type of spreadsheet-based research that I uploaded to the CoreMob wiki at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/CoreMob2012_Test_Coverage. But for now that will continue until we have a common place where we can document the results.
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 14:32:56 UTC

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