Re: Proposals from the task force

just a couple of comments below

On 5/30/2013 2:47 AM, Scott Jenson wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Wayne Carr 
> <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com <mailto: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....
>
>

Web technologies have been so successful (and gotten so much more 
capable) that there are more things people want to use it for.  So it 
needs to build out to become a more complete platform.  That doesn't 
mean W3C failed or is picking itself up after being knocked down.   It's 
entering new areas and in those areas needs to be able to offer what's 
needed in those areas.

>     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?

runtimes that support apis like those coming out of sysapps will be able 
to do things native apps can do, and that browser shouldn't. (because 
browsers have the issues of not trusting the content they present and 
have to worry about privacy and tracking, etc, but installed apps don't).

I think it's a positive situation.  capable of more than ever before.  
entering new areas.  need lots of new features.  and the big plus is the 
new things as they get done, work everywhere.

>
>     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.
I wasn't getting that in that section.  That's interesting.
>
> Scott
>