- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:38:53 +0000
- To: public-web-mobile@w3.org
On 23/01/2014 03:17, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: > If we avoid problematic words but arrive at the same destination I am > happy. I am not a fan of arbitrary lists or vocabulary prohibitions, > and do not recommend that W3C engage in either. But reasoned focus on > priorities given real-world use cases, yes. Whatever you accept to > call that, I'm ok with it. Just wondering about the underlying assumption though. It seems the idea is that as an app developer, I'll look at the technologies listed as supported in a "profile" to decide what my app should use. But isn't it the other way around? I build my web app with technologies that I need, and that informs what my app's required "profile" is. Then only browsers/devices that support those (through feature-detection) will be able to use it. Though admittedly, devs will also look at sites like caniuse.com to determine which technologies are considered "safe"...so perhaps it's more from this angle that we should strive to tackle it? 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 Thursday, 23 January 2014 09:39:15 UTC