- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:42:49 +0200
- To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- Cc: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Oct 4, 2011, at 23:41 , Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group wrote: > But to the general point of do we care about "split browsers" like Silk and > Mini for the purposes of the "linking" document: my view (discussed and > provisionally agreed with Jeni today) is that Web Architecture should treat > these as a single user agent since they are tightly coupled. This was the > logic we used when putting Opera Mini and things like it out of scope in the > Transforming Proxies best practices document in the Mobile Web Best > Practices WG. That's certainly true as things stand. I think the question that it opens up the question of whether there could be value in loosening that coupling by defining what happens in the last step. I haven't made up my mind yet — I'm merely asking. >>>> In an alternate Universe, the W3C would have more control over the >>>> brand that is "the Web" (e.g., with a certification program, which is a >>>> notoriously difficult place for a standards body to go). I'm not sure >>>> if it would be a better or worse universe. >>> >>> I honestly can't think of a single case in which such an approach >>> actually went well; but maybe it's just because we only hear of the >>> failures. > > I dunno - Wifi Alliance? USB? UNIX? > ...just sayin'... Hardware follows a different dynamic, but I'll take UNIX! Any more recent example? I was mostly thinking of projects like OMA's attempt to define what "mobile" was. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 22:43:26 UTC