W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Question from IETF's Interenet Architecture Board (IAB) web apps, native apps, web-based apps

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:16:16 +0200
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D65EDB0D-213E-401A-B83F-4DDDA7A7D072@berjon.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Hi Larry,

On Jun 8, 2012, at 22:44 , Larry Masinter wrote:
>> ...  What would the TAG be writing about? > What problem would we be addressing that isn't already on the menu for a working group?
> I'd like Hannes to elaborate what questions he'd like answered

Yes, I agree that that would be helpful.

> In the best of worlds, working groups focus on specific technology choices and specifications that can be implemented and deployed, and the role of the TAG is to document the overall architectural framework into which the technology choices fit.
> 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.

While these are certainly highly interesting topics I am not certain that they fit as a whole in the TAG's remit. For instance, I would find it strange to see the AWWW discuss "native" applications (which is currently understood to mean "applications that don't fit into the Web") when there is a clear push from multiple working groups to simply turn them into a relic of the past. A thought framework built on that dichotomy would I believe be destined to obsolescence.

> The TAG has taken on one of the elements (local vs. remote storage), but I don't think we have an overall framework.

We've also taken on how API design can impact the privacy of such applications. That, and local storage, make sense in that they remain relevant irrespective of the shape that technology outside of the Web stack has. There are certainly other such topics but we need to formulate precise questions for each of those if we want to come up with useful answers. I'm not convinced that an overall framework would be helpful here, I would fear it would be too general, too slow to produce, and generally fall into all the trappings and travails that a boil-the-ocean effort can risk falling into. I would be happy to be convinced otherwise, but to be honest at this point I'm not sure of what it would look like. If there's a framework for Web apps it's the AWWW. We can certainly update the AWWW in multiple places, but I don't really see room for a parallel document.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 11:16:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:16 UTC