W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Standards for Web applications on mobile devices: November 2011 updates

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 00:01:02 +0000
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DF66D9C7CEC740E692908F07CBDD2AF5@marcosc.com>


On Tuesday, 6 December 2011 at 08:58, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Hi all,
>  
> I've just released a new version of “Standards for Web Applications on
> Mobile” that takes into account the latest changes in the open Web
> platform:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/mobile-web-app-state.html
>  
> Updates since August 2011 [1] includes:
> * first drafts from Web RTC, of Geo API v2, Vibration API, CSS Device
> Adaptation
> * a bunch of last call (Device Orientation, Battery, Web Storage, Touch
> Events, Web Sockets, ...)
> * addition of references to accessibility materials on mobile
> * mention of early work on Web Intents
>  
> That document is extracted from the equivalent page in the W3C wiki
> where contributions from others are welcomed:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Standards_for_Web_Applications_on_Mobile
>  
> I'm planning to run another update of that document end of February.
> Feedback is as always very welcomed.

Although I think this document is quite informative, I again would like to raise objections about lumping app cache and widgets together for the same reasons I raised last time. However, I don't want to have that argument again: I just want to say I think it's disingenuous (perhaps make it more clear at the top of the document that the document represents mostly your personal opinion?). I'm also concerned that the text that I contributed to the document about the variety of applicability of the technologies has been removed.  

I'm also concerned at use of the terms "limited" and "very limited" to label "current implementations" as being both subjective and relativistic - and it implies that attempts to implement have ceased; particularly next to "well deployed", "Largely deployed", "Growing", and "Getting deployed". Either remove that column, or present some data to which you can underpin each of the labels.  
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 00:03:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:49 GMT