RE: [W3C Webmob] Profiles?

(Patrick wrote)
On 22/01/2014 20:00, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> <bryan> The existence of this IG is a reflection on the need for
> contextual (e.g. mobile, or TV) focus on use cases, techniques, and
> technologies that are most relevant in that context.

Is it not possible to discuss use cases, techniques and technologies, 
but without making our own "and this is the level of support we will 
require" statement? We may as well set up an arbitrary scoring system a 
la html5test.com?

<bryan> That is certainly possible, the question is whether it is adequate. The answer will depend upon your opinion and role in the market. 

> We do gain by
> creating these silly lists, because we are in the real world
> evaluating devices every day per priorities, and *someone* has to do
> that.

In what sense? Do you mean "should I bother making my site work in this 
browser, on this device, even though it falls short of CoreMob v.1.3.1 
which is what our org has set as the lowest expected level of adherence"?

<bryan> Re "should I bother", yes that is one takeaway from an assessment. For example, if I as a developer for a specific type of app depend upon HTML5 video, drag & drop, or any other specific feature, I will decide whether to target a specific browser or set of devices based upon that support. Once TTWF has established a queryable database of W3C test results, and the database grows / is populated by the normal processes of device certification (occurring all the time around the world), developers will be able to directly assess whether a browser/device meets their needs. At that point, outside of W3C stakeholders will be able to create test suite profiles that validate the features that they care about most, and ignore the rest. Thus the "profile" exercise at that point can become supplemental to W3C, as it *could* be now, but we have preferred (as with CoreMob) to engage W3C members directly in that assessment of priorities.

> If it's not W3C, from its view above the contextual fray, then
> it will be GSMA or some other organization (WAC.next?). These orgs
> *do* "get" the Web, and continually pressure vendors to extend and
> solidify it per real-world priorities.

But rather than pressuring to reach a certain arbitrary profile (as in 
"you must support the letter of the standard as it was on this 
particular date") of technologies, should the pressure not be driven by 
use cases and by whatever the latest development of a particular aspect 
of the standard is instead? Unless we plan on keeping the profiles 
continually updated to reflect the very latest developments (and then 
start numbering them, as otherwise a browser that "satisfies" CoreMob 
one day may all of a sudden not satisfy it).

<bryan>  Every assessment of priorities will grow stale unless it is maintained. That's why I earlier said that a "one and done" approach to CoreMob was inadequate and ultimately unhelpful. Just like the Mobile Web Best Practices, Mobile Web Applications Best Practices, Mobile OK, and other earlier work of W3C. It needs to be a living effort, or becomes a historical anecdote quickly.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/

______________________________________________________________
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
______________________________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 20:35:40 UTC