Re: Taxonomy of mobile apps approaches

Thanks Dominique :)

I've a question on the terminology for web app and the use of web
technologies in the description.

With many HTML5 libraries it is possible to keep a majority of
functionality on device (local storage for example). The like native
and hybrid, without being either.

Is there good cause to introduce a runtime requirement of being
constantly / majority connected in these definitions?

Best,

Richard.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Sep 2013, at 16:59, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in a separate thread, but thought I would highlight it
> on its own; as part of a report I started out of the "closing the gap"
> task force [1], I have built an early proposal for defining the several
> approaches that can be used to build mobile apps nowadays, defining in
> particular terms for "Web apps", "native apps", "hybrid apps" and more.
>
> This draft taxonomy is viewable at:
> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/apps-taxonomy/taxonomy.html
> and shared on this group's github account:
> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/apps-taxonomy
>
> The motivation behind this taxonomy is that many people are trying to
> make comparison between these various approaches, but in many cases, the
> terms are used ambiguously, in particular not taking into account the
> cases of Web apps outside the browser. If we can agree on definitions,
> and ideally names, for these various approaches, I feel that we will
> save a lot of misunderstandings, both inside and outside of this group.
>
> Some of the names and categorization choices have made are arbitrary,
> and some could say even controversial (there isn't any better
> controversy than one on names).
>
> The document itself lists some of the issues I have identified myself; I
> have also formally raised them as issues in the github repo:
> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/apps-taxonomy/issues
>
> I would like the group to adopt this document as one of its
> deliverables, and to work with me in building a consensus view on these
> names and categories.
>
> I very much welcome feedback both on the goal (getting an IG blessed
> taxonomy for mobile app approaches), and the specifics of this proposal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dom
>
> 1.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-mobile/2013Sep/0021.html
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 20:15:26 UTC