Re: Charter re-wording thoughts

Hi Kai,

Le lundi 24 novembre 2008 à 14:43 +0000, Kai Hendry a écrit :
> I think "suites" sounds a little overwhelming. Especially since the
> 'Web Compatibility Test' is the direction I'd like to see this group
> maintain.

I have replaced most of "test suites" by "tests" or "tests products"; I
think it would be difficult to change the name of the group at this
stage, though.

> Then I think it's important to make it clear the tests are not "mobile
> specific" necessarily.

I have softened a bit the language - it now says for instance "tests
adapted to browsers on mobile devices" rather than "targeted at".

>  I'd like to see 'mobile profile' stuff dropped.

Hmm... I think we're nearly ready with that one (assuming you're talking
about CSS Mobile Profile), and I think providing help on this testing
effort will help the Web at large (if only by helping the CSS WG make
progress on that specific tech), so I have kept it as is.

> WRT to dependencies, it would be good to be linked straight up to
> HTML5. This is after all what mobile browsers should be targeting in
> the long term.

I have added HTML5 in the list of groups, good point.

>  I still think there is more javascripty stuff we could
> do. I have no idea how the ECMAscript liaisons would work there.

OMA has an ECMAscript test suite (although I think Wilhelm wasn't
exactly very happy about it :), so we could work on this using that
liaison; I'm not sure we need a specific liaison with ECMA to work on
javascript-related tests. 
But maybe you are suggesting adding a specific item on
javascript-testing in the list of deliverables? I'm open to that, but
unless we have a clear idea of what this would be, maybe we can leave
that under "the task of the Working Group to establish the exact set of
tests to be worked on"?

> Perhaps I am going really too far here. Though I was thinking the mwts
> could almost become a report of the state of the industry.

I don't know when you did your review, but I added a few days ago as a
deliverable (and based on our discussions last week): "a Working Group
Note describing the current state of the mobile web user agents based on
test results" (from the WCTMB). Or are you thinking something broader
than WCTMB?


>  I don't
> know of any other group filling the role of informing developers that
> say static SVG now works on Iphones. We could of course phrase this
> differently informally blogging (or tweeting :-) for e.g. something
> like "Congratulations to the Safari Mobile/5G77 developers which
> which passes the static SVG test (12/16 WCT 1.4)".

Note that it would be fairly easy to set up a blog for our working
group, if people are interested in using it - my experience with groups
blogs is that they tend to remain very quiet, but if you and other feels
like using it, I can see it being useful.

>  Be good to score
> devices too or would a leaderboard go totally overboard WRT vendor
> neutrality?

I guess I would need to see it before evaluating that question, but I
think it is possible to have something akin to that without breaking
vendor neutrality.

> So besides providing targets for mobile UA vendors to hit, it would be
> cool to inform Web developers that the Web platform on mobiles is
> pretty viable. All they need to do is probably think how to make their
> applications a little leaner. For consumers, I did actually think that
> end consumers might check their potential purchase with WCT, though I
> am starting to think that's a little too ambitious. ;)

It would be neat, though, wouldn't it? :)

Dom

Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 08:35:19 UTC