Re: Are Level 0 features included in Level 1 Spec?

Thanks Bryan

That is a very helpful offer. The group needs to decide what the point of such a specification might be and what relationship it might have with a testing component. I know that there is some trepidation in the group about returning to a "meta" level of unactionable discussion on this topic. So it's clear to me that the original purpose won't wash and that if there is to be such a document then it needs to have a restated purpose. It might benefit from a name change to make that clear. I think that we would need to be focused and time bounded in the extreme in producing any such document. I'll say more on this in my responses to my ACTION-2 and ACTION-4.

I have a planned chairs call today with Robin, we'll discuss taking on AT&T's kind offer.

Meanwhile my apologies for there being no meeting summary as yet - I'm finding that summarising the 2 day meeting is taking more than 2 days. "I would have written less if I had had more time" comes to mind.

Thanks
Jo

On 18 Jul 2012, at 23:43, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:

> Jo,
>  
> AT&T would like to support the definition of Level 0 and step up as editor of the spec. We believe that this baseline is very important and needs to be supported in the overall CoreMob program including test assets. Our developer program team has the resources to support this effort, and is looking forward to getting more directly involved in W3C work in support of developers and mobile web user agent compliance.
>  
> Given that we provide the needed editing support, I would like to get confirmation that there is support in general for continuing this work in CoreMob.
>  
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
>  
> From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jo@linguafranca.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:16 AM
> To: Tobie Langel
> Cc: Core Mobile
> Subject: Re: Are Level 0 features included in Level 1 Spec?
>  
> On 18 Jul 2012, at 14:15, Tobie Langel wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Sun,
> 
> On 7/10/12 5:16 PM, "Sun, Dan" <Dan.Sun@VerizonWireless.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Tobie/Robin/Jo/All,
>  
> Level 0 was touched a little bit in the first F2F but no clear direction.
> 
> Think there's a clear direction. L0 is shelved. Unshelving it will require
> providing a new spec editor for it and getting group consensus to do so.
> So far, no editor has volunteered.
>  
> I think the F2F meeting determined that there is still interest in level 0 - at least that is the way I have written the meeting summary and the way that my response to my ACTION-2 [1]  reads. I completely hear your point that without an editor stepping forward it will be difficult to progress.
>  
> I'm sorry that these have not appeared sooner - they are coming to this list very shortly.
>  
> Thanks
> Jo
>  
> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/actions/2