- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:58:12 +0000
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
On 4/1/12 4:21 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: >I think many people will be confused, as I was, by the use of RFC2119 >terminology. Can we change is to show stats instead? I'm not sure I understand what makes a de facto standard a bad candidate for specification. Can you elaborate? (I mean, outside of the obvious issues in Coremob level 0 like proprietary APIs, patent-encumbered codecs, etc. which are orthogonal issues.) >>Yes, that is the purpose of Cormob level 1, which will go in the details >>of the features missing to build around 90% of the top 100 "native" >>applications on the Mobile Web Platform. > >That's excellent to hear, Tobie. This is not captured very well anywhere >and I think it should be (hence my little skeptical outburst). I tried to give context in the wiki. It's still a work in progress atm. >After a million failed efforts of this sort, I really just want to see >this "done right" (tm) for once. I think we have the right people to do >it right here - but right now I fear we've already started down the wrong >path with the way level 0 is being written. I don't think form is going to make or break this effort. Shipping implementations will. That said, nothing is set in stone at this point. --tobie
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 14:58:40 UTC