On 14-Oct-2009, at 12:12, Stephen Jolly wrote:
On 14 Oct 2009, at 11:47, Mo McRoberts wrote:
Thus creating an (effective) two-tier system: those who work go the
whole hog within Canvas, or those who adhere to all of the
_technical_ specifications but need to come to separate
arrangements in order to deliver them, and can’t (of course), brand
their devices as being Canvas-compliant.
I think the document I linked to implies a more flexible picture
than that.
It doesn’t.
From §2.3:
“We believe that a consistent UX is necessary to create a successful
platform of meaningful scale for reasons set out below (see section
2.5 for more detail). At the same time we recognise needs of content
providers, device manufacturers, platform operators and ISPs and want
to create a flexible approach that supports their business models and
still delivers the benefits described above. In order to retain this
flexibility in a horizontal market but also the benefits set out above
we are proposing a “thin” core UI managed by the Canvas JV with each
content provider, manufacturer, etc. able to develop sub-sections of
that UI. This is set out in more detail in section 2.6, with a summary
of the flexibility offered to each stakeholder set out in section 2.7.”
That is, the “thin” core UI is mandated. Figure 1 in §2.6 makes it
quite clear what is considered “core UI”. §2.7 is just a sales pitch
to each segment on the basis of the structure defined earlier.
M.
--
mo mcroberts
http://nevali.net
iChat: [email protected] Jabber/GTalk: [email protected] Twitter:
@nevali
Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook -
http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
