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

Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call

From: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:49:04 +0000
Message-Id: <96C6338F-A95A-4A26-9F2B-B7E8C38F6A04@linguafranca.org>
To: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Hi Folks

I've asked for contributions on this topic to be made by this coming Sunday, and at that point my job as chair is to make an assessment of what the consensus is as to what to do next.

Here are the options:

a) Close the group down
b) Continue as a CG
c) Continue as an IG

Both b) and c) will require rechartering. b) because the present charter is, in part at least, no longer relevant, since the testing agenda is now a separate initiative in W3C. You'll forgive me for not wishing to draft and propose a new charter if there is no will in the group to commit resource and to progress agendas that result in moving discussion forward.

As I mentioned, at this stage I'd prefer to have a discussion about what the group will do, rather than the form it takes. But to repeat, I believe that  formulation as an IG will allow the group both to have the broad community engagement for which I share a desire, as well as having the benefit of more support from W3C.

So, please can you indicate on this list, or off-list to me, whether you (and your organisation) have an interest in contributing to one of the following suggested task forces. Now would also be the time to mention other areas of interest and agenda items that you think are pertinent. 

Here are 4 ideas about task forces:

A) Commercial

i) To look at priority areas to make the Web a more compelling platform for commerce, transactions and payments
ii) To make the Web a more compelling platform for monetization of content
iii) To make the costs of cross platform development and deployment more tractable

B) Mobile Context

i) To make the Web a more compelling platform for implementing mobile-specific use cases. Shopping, Transportation & Travel, Leisure 
ii) To recognise the enduring gap in bandwidth, screen size, input methods and much else that will be encountered in a multi-channel Web

C) Closing the Gap

i) To progress our earlier work and lobby to accelerate work in W3C related to it
ii) To identify other areas represent priorities where the Web is uncompetitive with native
iii) To work on perception and outreach 
iv) To take items identified in the Headlight project of the same name, and progress them


i) To identify areas where the Web has an inherent advantage over native
ii) To take a longer term view of what cross channel and multi channel mean
iii) To assess what techniques are required for practical cross channel implementation (including the meaning of "responsive")
iv) To identify missing technologies

Like I say, please indicate your interest in any and all of the above.

Thanks in advance for your contributions.

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 06:49:42 UTC

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