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

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

From: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:01:05 +0000
Cc: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6ACF8D93-9C0E-4F08-B6C2-F3BB2C1A07F4@linguafranca.org>
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>
Hi Bryan

Thanks for summarising your view again, a couple of comments in line

Jo

On 21 Mar 2013, at 16:08, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com> wrote:

> Comments inline. Most of our input has been provided to the list several times so hopefully this will not be news but a summary.
> 
> In general we believe the CoreMob CG should continue and are committed to support it actively. See below for the details.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan 
> 
...
> 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
> 
> <bryan> I believe there are already other CGs focused on these areas. I recommend that CoreMob continue focus on mobile, more generically.

I believe that these are significantly mobile concerns - I don't disagree that they have general relevance.

> 
> 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
> 
> <bryan> Improving the mobile (or nomadic) service context remains our key goal for CoreMob. It affects the nature of the devices and the UI/UX provided by them, the plurality of user-agents and app development/deployment approaches (e.g. browser, widgets, hybrid, online/offline), resource/performance issues, etc. These are aspects that affect a large part of what users experience as the Web (or more generally internet-based services) since more users are experiencing the web on mobile/nomadic devices.
> 
> 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
> 
> <bryan> This is a part of (B). Addressing the gaps or unclarity in CoreMob 2012, and continuing to identify key gaps (CoreMob 2013 and beyond) and initiate work to close them, is one of our continuing goals for CoreMob. CoreMob 2012 is not done; we now have to live with it, as it represents part of our legacy and the reputation of W3C (Was it a worthwhile exercise? Was it precise/accurate enough? Did it have real effect? Was it worthwhile if limited to a one-off exercise?). W3C needs to ensure adequate follow-thru on work, and IMO the follow-thru on CoreMob 2012 is just beginning.
I don't disagree that B) and C) could be taken together.

> 
> D) THE AWESOME WEB
> 
> ...
> <bryan> This seems like a broader and longer-term view topic likely interesting for another CG.
To my way of thinking this is a central agenda for an ongoing coremob. 
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 14:01:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:47 UTC