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

Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob

From: <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:37:14 +0000
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <25141_1363012635_513DEC1B_25141_4_15_87883589298E8346AF11C2E0E8101E3F04B4D0@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To summarise, there are three possibilities: keep working as a CG, switch
to an IG, or merge the initiative with Dom's Closing The Gap.

I am quite a newcomer in the W3C family, so sorry if that sounds obvious
for most but how do people normally process to decide? Voting? Resolution?


On 11/03/2013 14:10, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>

>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:48:37 +0100, Arthur Barstow
>> On 3/10/13 7:12 AM, ext Jo Rabin wrote:
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 14:37:45 UTC

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