RE: ACTION-660: Input to BP2, Scope and Criteria

I think we should not focus on specific content formats or technologies,
but define recommendations that apply to any technology that can be
broadly classed as a "web technology". Generic/specialized XML based
content types used by widgets or other applications also fall in that
camp, and are just as useful to web applications as

The same goes for user agents. We can gain a better benefit by not
focusing on one type of user agent or another, but setting common
objectives for user agent behavior. I think the biggest issues apart
from the ones I focused on first (personalization, security/privacy,
user awareness/control) are presentation and interaction limitations of
mobile devices. These are all common issues for almost any type of web
application on mobile devices. We can use the browser as the anchor for
discussions, but we should not forget that web applications are breaking
out of that sandbox (and already have).

Overall, we need to talk about application behavior and adaptation to
the mobile environment, not about user agents or specific content types.

I do think that HTTP is a good common denominator though for the
transaction transport protocol in consideration. Most everything "web"
is based upon HTTP or some variant/extension of it.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Owen [] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:05 PM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: BPWG-Public
Subject: Re: ACTION-660: Input to BP2, Scope and Criteria

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Sullivan, Bryan <> wrote:
>  Re "anything that's not (X)HTML over HTTP is probably well out of
>  scope": I don't think we want to be so limited. Web applications can 
> be  expressed in a variety of languages/schemas for which the basic 
> issues  of mobile use are the same. Syndication applications (e.g. 
> ATOM/RSS  readers and content upload applications) are an example of a

> web  application that does not use XTHML (or at least have to).

Good example, and this is beginning to crystallize what it is we might
be talking about. XHTML over HTTP (and CSS, Javascript, and so on) seems
in scope. I could imagine having something to say about RSS, sure.
Anything else? I can't think of much that's in somewhat common use that
is relevant to mobile.

>  have expressed yours ((X)HTML web browsers), and I have others 
> (phonetop  widgets operating outside the browser sandbox). This will 
> come out as we  back up the statement "The focus of the BP2 document 
> is on producing  Best Practices that apply to the browser sandbox, 
> while recognising that  they may have broader applicability to the Web

> Runtime (CSS, HTML,  Javascript, DOM, Persistent Storage, additional 
> libraries, no browser  chrome, cache, etc.), esp Mobile Widgets". What

> applies to the browser  sandbox, if it can be reasonably applied 
> outside the browser sandbox,  will benefit from consideration of 
> similar requirements outside that  sandbox.

Yeah let's start having this discussion then. Storage, libraries,
widgets -- what do we have in mind here? The widgets bit is probably
particularly important to home in on. What particular existing
technology are we talking about here? I am not sure I know of anything
in common use for which one might plausibly name best practices, or
practices, yet.

If the gist of this is, that we're talking about XHTML and CSS and
Javascript that might be consumed by a range of mobile devices and
technologies, then fine. We agree we're talking about resources, not
agents, so we can do away with the discussion of what the consumers will
be to a large extent. The best practices will then be about XHTML and
HTTP and CSS and Javascript and RSS? then I think we are in the same

Does anyone else have thoughts here... I wonder if I am off base given
other discussions that have gone on.

Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 08:25:14 UTC