W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: BP2 Comments.

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:33:11 -0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0804030733i2647a6c9k909528992f1be85a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

On the call today it was asked whether we are ready to publish a first
working draft of BP2. I normally find this a good thing. I would only
suggest we wait if there are still outstanding issues of *scope* --
putting out a doc about A, B and C today, and then a next draft about
B, C, and D could be confusing. I claim there are still scoping
issues, and would like to highlight them here, and suggest we should
please formally resolve to include or exclude a few things before a
first draft. I have some sense there is agreement on scoping issues
here, but don't claim to be sure, so bringing it up again here:

I support Adam's comments, in particular:

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Adam Connors <adamconnors@google.com> wrote:
> 5.3.2 Inform user about device memory impact.
>  - I agree with earlier comments that this is out of scope. HTML5 is about
> the closest technology to this but I can't imagine a case where it makes
> sense for a web-page to inform memory impact.
> - The language is very application specific. You don't "install"
> web-applications. Even if using HTML5 storage there isn't an explicit
> "install" stage so these statements are anachronistic.

Agree, I think these sound strongly like references to client-side
applications, and those I assert are definitely out of scope. I
understand the notion that we should be forward-looking where
possible, and not go out of our way to not mention principles that are
more widely applicable, but this seems to be strictly about something
that is a) not a Mobile Web application, and b) not even practice, let
alone best practice. I do not know how to write a Mobile Web
application that knows its memory impact on the target device, does

> 5.3.4 Provide disclosures that are timely.
> - Language is too application specific. If in most cases we are talking
> about "web-applications" references to "application selection, install,
> first runtime" sound strange and anachronistic.  If we are referring to
> specific non-browser technologies I think we need to call this out
> explicitly since anybody reading this document on the assumption we are
> referring mostly to browser-based applications won't know what to make of a
> recommendation worded in these terms.

Same comment.

> 5.5.3 Refers to MIDP Push Registry which is specifically out of scope. Isn't
> OMA push also out of scope for "web applications". I don't know of any push
> techniques that do work for web-applications. A hanging-get is the nearest
> thing, but has problems of its own.

Same comment.
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 14:34:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC