- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:04:43 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 6/8/2012 4:44 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > AWWW doesn't talk about native applications and the relationships and tradeoffs for security, privacy, monetization, reliability, offline operation, of native apps, web apps, and widgets. If the proposal is to >include< native applications as being within the architecture, I have some doubts. If the proposal is to have the TAG explain, perhaps by extending AWWW, how applications can be built using Web technology, I think that's definitely in scope. I note that about 3 years ago we went as far as creating and debating [1] the possible outline [2] for the resulting publication(s). I think we decided that going top down seemed to put us on a 10 year path to completion, and so we decided to start by picking certain high value pieces, including application state, and now perhaps storage. Whether or not we extend AWWW in such a comprehensive way to include applications, I think it may well be appropriate for the TAG to compare the pros and cons of native vs. Web apps, to help the W3C and community understand where there are gaps in the capabilities of Web apps that lead people toward using native, and thus help to maximize the impact of Web technologies. I don't think I want to create the appearance that native applications are part of the larger Web architecture, except insofar as somee do link to, and/or publish information using Web technologies such as URIs and HTTP (as many in fact do). Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda#Applicatio [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 21:05:09 UTC