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

Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:10:31 +0100
To: public-coremob@w3.org, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <op.wtscbt16y3oazb@chaals.local>
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:48:37 +0100, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  

> On 3/10/13 7:12 AM, ext Jo Rabin wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/2013/03/10/next-steps-for-w3c-coremob-2013-03-10/
> So I see two important messages here and I trust there is consensus on  
> these ...
> 1. If you want to actively contribute to W3C testing efforts, join  
> public-test-infra.


> 2. If you want to actively engage with developers, contribute to  
> WebPlatform.org.

Well, depends *how* you want to engage, but yeah...

> Re new scope, depending on how one squints, I think CoreMob was  
> originally mostly about "minding the gaps". As such, I recommend merging  
> this group and Dom's public-closing-the-gaps group. ATM, there is 100%  
> overlap between these two groups regarding people that have submitted  
> something to the gaps list. It seems like it will be mostly make work to  
> try to rationalize the two groups so it would be more efficient to just  
> merge the efforts  now.

The list will hang around forever, but headlights efforts are meant to be  
short-term (a few months). So I suspect it goes the other way around - a  
good outcome for that group would be that a sperset of CoreMob keeps going  
with it.

Note that there is already a WebTV Interest Group - effectively the model  
that Jo is suggesting. I think the model is good. The group has staff  
resources which helps them navigate W3C, and they have committed members  
who do the necessary real work.

So they talk amongst their peers to get some sense of what they really  
need (which is usually something slightly different from what they thought  
when they started), and then do the hard work in the relevant groups  
(HTML, Webapps, etc) to standardise in the context of the Web Platform,  
which they recognise as bigger than TV while also showing that TV is one  
part of it.

> Re continued spec work, does anyone have any real data about how the  
> CoreMob spec was actually used (other than as an input to  
> public-test-infra)? For instance did any proprietary browser vendor or  
> OSS browser engine implement feature X/Y/Z specifically because that  
> feature/spec was listed in CoreMob?

I have no real data, but I claim that it was valuable to have specs listed.

It's not a one-way exercise - vendors also seek to "manipulate" the list,  
to manage expectations (the price of everything being in public), but I  
think it is really quite useful.

I've also seen large groups of game developers interested in the approach.  
I think it's good to get a segment of the industry looking like this, and  
encourage them to provide their input in the wider forum where it can get  
taken up for real.

> Re IG vs. CG, I can see +/- both ways but it seems to me that the most  
> efficient thing to do is to continue this group as is and rather than  
> debate group structure, spend energy on #1 or #2 above or The Gaps stuff.

Yeah, I don't think we should lose a lot of sleep on what is most  
effective. There are benefits to an IG, and the potential drawbacks look  
mostly theoretical to me, so I lean that way right now. But mostly we  
should focus on doing work instead of talking about it...



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 14:10:59 UTC

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