I think this highlights a critical scope problem that has been pointed out time and again. I don't think it can be repeated enough: *we are not writing about general mobile phone applications*. We are writing about web applications. An application that is consumed by a browser? yes. An application that is consumed by some widget with a web runtime that understands markup like a browser? yes. An application that is installed on a device? no. Nobody has ever "installed" a web page. I think we must take a resolution one way or the other on this tomorrow. We cannot continue to write a document along these lines, and I don't get a sense the document is "listening". In my opinion that is. Sean On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote: > Re "5.3.2 Inform user about device memory impact": In terms of > "installation", we are talking in part about web applications here that can > run outside the browser sandbox (e.g. using a web runtime). These do have > impact upon device memory for installation. Re data memory, web applications > that manage persistent data can consume considerable device memory, > depending upon their nature. It's important that this BP guide developers > toward this disclosure, unless BPWG wants to focus only on the browser, > which would be a considerable retreat in my opinion on the value of BP2 (we > could then call it "BP1.5"), and not serving the developer community with > guidance for the real scope of mobile web applications. I clarified the BP > as related to "Users should be informed of impacts to device memory for > installable web applications."Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 21:55:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC