Le mercredi 07 décembre 2011 à 00:01 +0000, Marcos Caceres a écrit : > Although I think this document is quite informative, I again would > like to raise objections about lumping app cache and widgets together > for the same reasons I raised last time.
Your last message on the thread last time made me think your objections had been lifted: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1459.html But I guess I misunderstood it. I'm a bit at loss as to how to make progress on this. > However, I don't want to have that argument again: I just want to say > I think it's disingenuous (perhaps make it more clear at the top of > the document that the document represents mostly your personal > opinion?). I'm also concerned that the text that I contributed to the > document about the variety of applicability of the technologies has > been removed. I did remove it, indeed; listing all the things the document doesn't do didn't seem very helpful to the reader, and seemed redundant with the scoping statement of the document: "This document summarizes the various technologies developed in W3C that increase the power of Web applications, and how they apply more specifically to the mobile context." > I'm also concerned at use of the terms "limited" and "very limited" to > label "current implementations" as being both subjective and > relativistic - and it implies that attempts to implement have ceased; > particularly next to "well deployed", "Largely deployed", "Growing", > and "Getting deployed". Either remove that column, or present some > data to which you can underpin each of the labels. I agree that the current data are somewhat subjective (and have amended the description of the column in the introduction accordingly). My sources have been: * my personal knowledge of what's available where, and what I've heard is coming soon * http://mobilehtml5.org/ * caniuse.com Ideally, I would like a lot more of the data in that column to come from W3C test suite results, but since we're not there yet, I think subjective (but I'm hoping reasonably well informed) data are probably more helpful to the reader than no data at all. And as any other part of the document, I'm happy to get specific feedback on which of these assessments you think are not in line with the market. Dom
