Re: BP2 Comments.

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."