Re: Feb 2013 edition of "Standards for Web Applications on Mobile: current state and roadmap"

Thanks for making this, Dom. (When do you find the time?)  

FYI. I see a couple of specs we mention as only partially addressing requirements in Section 5[1] that are present in your document but don't get a Coremob medal (e.g. full-sreen, orientation lock).

This makes sense but at the same time seems to indicate that we don't really care about them. Which is exactly the opposite of the message we're trying to get through.

Would maybe adding a Coremob medal broken in half convey our intention better?

--tobie
---
[1]: http://coremob.github.com/coremob-2012/FR-coremob-20130131.html#requirements-only-partially-addressed-by-existing-specifications


On Monday, March 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> I've just released the quaterly update to my overview of the most
> mobile-relevant Web application technologies:
> http://www.w3.org/2013/02/mobile-web-app-state/
>  
> One of its brand new addition is that it highlights the specifications
> that this group has identified as part of the CoreMob 2012 spec; I've
> used a kind of gold medal to that effect next to the name of the
> relevant spec, but if there is a CoreMob logo of some sort I could
> instead, it would probably make more sense :)
>  
> I haven't gotten the full way through adding all the CoreMob2012 specs
> to the list — in particular, the ones that fulfill "requirement 1" (i.e.
> be able to run "desktop" Web apps) were a bit of a stretch for a
> document focusing on mobile.
>  
> As always feedback, and even better, contributions to the wiki version
> at http://www.w3.org/wiki/Standards_for_Web_Applications_on_Mobile, are
> much welcome.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Dom

Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 14:18:16 UTC