Re: Proposals from the task force

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>wrote:

>  I just did a very quick read-through.  I'll read it more carefully later,
> but wanted to make a couple of comments.
>

First, a bit thank you. Appreciate the comments.

>
> I think there are some opinions in there that are fine coming from a
> particular individual or org, but may not be good in something if presented
> as the view of something like this task force.  Also, it seems some places
> this is already underway.
>

While I too am concerned about this as well, I feel that much of the W3C
goes too far the other way, listing a long series of capabilities but not
really putting things together to create a bigger whole. I'm perfectly fine
to change the tone of this report but I do want to keep some of the 'this
is why we're here' feeling.

>
> 2. "In the court of public opinion, the war between native apps and web
> apps appears to be over. Even though the web world is valiantly and
> consistently improving the web platform, the world seems to have moved on,
> embracing and rewarding native apps." ... "The web has been on it’s back
> footing for too long, aspiring to catch up to the legacy of the iPhone
> native app model."
>
> Probably not conclusions everyone would want to see attributed to W3C.
> (though of course fine as an individual, company or some other org's
> conclusion if that's what they think.).
>

Fair enough, but it seems to me that much of the W3C work is indeed on it's
back foot. Even the name of *this* group is defensive: "closing the gap".
The whole purpose of this report is to be proactive and consider ways that
'web apps' can do more than just catch up....

>
> More generally, I don't think we should pitch this task force in terms of
> any competition with anything else.  it should be about is developing web
> technologies - finding out what's missing and what should be developed next
> to create a useful platform.
>

I'll just repeat my previous observation that we're called 'closing the
gap', we are, by definition, in competition. Or am I reading too much into
the name?


>
> 3. "Web UX Style 1: Native App replacement"
>
> isn't this what we see in Firefox OS, Chrome OS, Tizen, Windows 8,
> WebOS?   That's what the SysApps WG is about.  They went through the
> exercise of figuring out which specs to create first to enable that and are
> underway.  that seems the place I think to discuss a lot of what this paper
> is about.  The SysApps WG was created to explore capabilities beyond the
> usual Browser sandbox, capabilities not safe for the Browser sandbox then.
>

Actually there are a TON of things, like app cache or camera APIs, that
fall into this broad category of 'catching up to native'. My point is where
do we stop? We do seem to be trying to create native quality apps with the
web. I personally think that FirefoxOS et all aren't going far enough, they
are basically bookmarks + a custom run time. What shouldn't this be
available to any native platform if you install a modern browser?

>
> 4. "Web UX Style 2: On demand interaction"
> This sounds like the Network Service Discovery spec[1] from the DAP WG.
>

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that but my guess is that it's likely fairly
programatic. The purpose of this section was to instill a 'native can't do
that' idea by raising on-demand to a very high level, above any specific
app.

>
> 5. "Web UX Style 3: Multi Screen interaction"
> The description isn't about the title of the section.  It seems similar to
> the On demand interaction section above it.  It seems like it's about the
> Network Service Discovery spec (using existing local network discovery) and
> maybe also about Web Intents (from DAP WG and Web Apps WG - but sort of
> dead at the moment until someone figures out how to do it).
>

I think that's a fair comment, I can try to reword it a bit to help
clarify. The point was to build ON TOP of the on demand and explore what
it'll take to have applications run across multiple screens at the same
time.

Scott