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

RE: BP2 Comments.

From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:17:58 -0700
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD09B3F090@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
Cc: "Adam Connors" <adamconnors@google.com>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Sean,
I can't agree with you more: we are not focusing on general phone
applications.

No one may have installed a web page, but they have installed
web-runtime supported applications (whether you call them widgets or
not) that use web technologies to do a lot of things that are consistent
with what you can also do in a browser, and *more*. These can run
outside the browser, but you can't just call them a "browser" (though I
would be willing to if that would help us reach consensus on what I
consider this unecessary persistent stumbling point!).

Re "along these lines", I don't see anything in the document that is
inconsistent with what we have defined as web applications, and I for
one am listening intently.

I will not be on the call tomorrow or next week. I request that a
resolution on this point not be taken unless I am present.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 2:54 PM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: Adam Connors; MWI BPWG Public
Subject: 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."
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 23:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC