Re: Rough first draft of Level 0

Hi Robin,



	
	    * Do platforms other than iOS support these, or plan to?


I don't think other platforms implement these meta tags. The only meta tag I know is supported by Android is apple-touch-icon-precomposed that defines the icon to be used when a shortcut on a bookmark is added on the Home Screen. I think it would be nice however to put them in the ring 1 as there is no real alternative to these right now.

Jean-Francois 



	 
	Robin Berjon <mailto:robin@berjon.com> 
	29 March 2012 10:47
	Hi Jean-François,
	
	On Mar 28, 2012, at 17:57 , <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com> <mailto:jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com>  <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com> <mailto:jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com>  wrote:

		I have a few points I would like to comment before forking the repository and propose changes:
			* Codecs are evil but I think their support must be mentioned. It is good as a developer to be sure that the video/audio format you use is going to be widely supported. We have seen with the recent experience of Mozilla and Firefox Mobile that they have been pushed to announce a future support of H264.

	
	Yes, it's definitely useful for developers to have something they can rely on, preferably without having to produce multiple encodings all the time. I guess that H264 might be the Realpolitik option :)
	
	The primary question here is of the legal variety. Making a normative requirement on non-RF technology is not an option on Rec-track documents produced by a WG; but I am unclear as to what the status of that is for a CG report that does not define new technology to start with. I've copied Ian here as he's the authority on this (Ian, context is http://coremob.github.com/level-0/).
	

			* Quite surprised to see some platform specific meta tags in the level 0 as the introduction states that the document is not platform centric, but web centric. Also, I agree that these tags are useful and I would welcome their inclusion in other platforms but ring 0 is supposed to be the current state. Would not it be more coherent to put them in the ring 1 if we decided to include them?

	
	I included those tentatively because they have a somewhat intermediary status. They are definitely useful, and while they clearly include a vendor name some are also proposed as meta extensions as part of the WHATWG process: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions (and I presume others could be). My questions here are:
	
	    * Do platforms other than iOS support these, or plan to?
	    * When we do get some AppConfig manifest, do we want to grandfather these in?
	
	But I certainly have no qualms removing these - overall in writing up the draft I've deliberately erred on the side of inclusion. It's much easier to notice something that was included which we want to remove than it is to remember something excluded that we actually want to include :)
	
	 
	jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com
	28 March 2012 16:57
	Hello Robin,
	
	I have a few points I would like to comment before forking the repository and propose changes:
	

	*	Codecs are evil but I think their support must be mentioned. It is good as a developer to be sure that the video/audio format you use is going to be widely supported. We have seen with the recent experience of Mozilla and Firefox Mobile that they have been pushed to announce a future support of H264.
	*	Quite surprised to see some platform specific meta tags in the level 0 as the introduction states that the document is not platform centric, but web centric. Also, I agree that these tags are useful and I would welcome their inclusion in other platforms but ring 0 is supposed to be the current state. Would not it be more coherent to put them in the ring 1 if we decided to include them?
		

	Thank you very much,
	
	Jean-Francois
	
	
	Robin Berjon <mailto:robin@berjon.com> 
	28 March 2012 15:57
	Dear all,
	
	please find the (very) rough draft of "Core Mobile Web Platform - Level 0" at the following URL:
	
	http://coremob.github.com/level-0/
	
	A lot of it is still in flux, notably we need to check that some of those features are really at level 0 and not 1. Also, a number of things that should be in there are missing (notably details about what to support from HTML for instance, or some parts of CSS modules).
	
	As you can see there are a bunch of issues. You are invited to voice your opinion on those here (and, of course, on any other feedback you may have). Please read the "Philosophy" section before commenting on any of the rest, it's not meant to be fluff. I haven't had time to update the references DB with all the missing references as well as to update the out of date links that it has.
	
	If you feel like getting your hands dirty, the repository is at:
	
	https://github.com/coremob/level-0/
	
	So go ahead, fork, and make pull requests. It is important to note that the branch in which the real stuff happens is gh-pages (*not* master).
	
	Share and enjoy!