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: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:51:25 +0100
Message-ID: <1323251485.23433.23.camel@cumulustier>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Le mercredi 07 décembre 2011 à 00:01 +0000, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> 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.

Your last message on the thread last time made me think your objections
had been lifted:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1459.html

But I guess I misunderstood it. I'm a bit at loss as to how to make
progress on this. 

>  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 did remove it, indeed; listing all the things the document doesn't do
didn't seem very helpful to the reader, and seemed redundant with the
scoping statement of the document: 
        "This document summarizes the various technologies developed in
        W3C that increase the power of Web applications, and how they
        apply more specifically to the mobile context."


> 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.  

I agree that the current data are somewhat subjective (and have amended
the description of the column in the introduction accordingly).

My sources have been:
* my personal knowledge of what's available where, and what I've heard
is coming soon
* http://mobilehtml5.org/
* caniuse.com

Ideally, I would like a lot more of the data in that column to come from
W3C test suite results, but since we're not there yet, I think
subjective (but I'm hoping reasonably well informed) data are probably
more helpful to the reader than no data at all.

And as any other part of the document, I'm happy to get specific
feedback on which of these assessments you think are not in line with
the market.

Dom
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 09:51:38 GMT

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