Re: Introduction

We've got lots to do working at a level above APIs. Working on stuff that will make the Web a better place for cross channel, multi channel, usable doesn't really have much to do with APIs at the outset.

We have plenty to do pointing out that the APIs we'd like to see are non-existent, incomplete, inconsistent or imprecise.

There is quite a bit of activity in the W3C and elsewhere assessing availability and conformance of features in different implementations. That's certainly relevant to this group, but specifically maintaining a list of "who-does-what" is something that seems to be happening quite nicely, and that we don't need to spent time doing.

Jo
On 18 Sep 2013, at 16:20, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) wrote:
> 
>> Can this group take up the cause of naming and shaming browser makers who
>> are not choosing to implement these APIs and thereby hold the Web back?
> 
> No, but we can take an approach of showing other browser makers how this would benefit their users and the kinds of applications it would enable :) In any case, we will push for the adoption of certain APIs, but with a positive spin. 
> 
> We are going to set up the infrastructure to track this in a way similar to how the TAG is doing its API reviews ;) 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marcos Caceres
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 15:33:38 UTC