Yes, but I agree with the "wontfix" resolution. This is about webapps, and with webapps feature detection is the way to go. Otherwise we'll be back to the dark ages of the browser wars.
I don't think FxOS is it about FxOS itself, but about developing technologies that will enable us to create applications for any device, regardless of the underlying system. If successful, in the far future FxOS will become redundant, because the same technologies that create apps for this system will serve to create apps for iOS, Android, or whatever will be fashionable then. Therefore, "version X minimum required" stickers are harmful. What we have right now is not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. On 2 May 2014 21:08, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Pablo Brasero Moreno wrote: > > Well, thank you for your input everyone. I have put together some > > > > conclusions. Please let me know if you disagree or have something to > add. I > > > > also have some questions towards the end, for those brave enough to read > > > > the whole thing and still be wanting more. > > > > > > > > Developers of FxOS applications should develop with 1.1 in mind for now. > > > > Mozilla is planning to make the Flame be the reference device, but this > > > > will only be relevant in the mid/long term, once there are more 1.3 > devices > > > > available to the general public. > > > > > > > > Interestingly, Mozilla is currently encouraging developers to use 1.2+ > > > > simulators, as well as practises (chiefly flexboxes) that don't work well > > > > in earlier versions and whose support cannot always be detected at > runtime. > > > > This means that a number of newly arrived developers are going to develop > > > > new apps without being aware of these downsides. > > > > > > > > These developers can be divided into these categories: > > > > > > > > A) Those who have 1.0.1 or 1.1 devices. They will try their apps on > their > > > > own devices and realise that something is amiss > > > > B.1) Those who have 1.2+ devices: they may create apps that don't work > on > > > > old devices, and they may be unaware of this problem > > > > B.2) Those who don't actually have a FxOS device and just use the > > > > simulators. (Do these actually exist...?) > > > > > > > > Those under (A) may be upset if they have been using a 1.2+ simulator and > > > > suddenly find they can't use their own app on their own devices. At least > > > > they'll realise the problem in time and fix it (hopefully). > > > > > > > > Those under (B) will only become aware of the problem at the Marketplace > > > > review stage. However, if the review isn't thorough enough, problems > could > > > > be missed, hitting end users. > > > > > > > > OS upgrades are not the solution. At the moment they are not automatic, > > > > require using adb in the best of cases, and even then they doesn't always > > > > work. I'm a tech-savy individual and I couldn't upgrade my ZTE Open to > 1.2 > > > > following the instructions (although now I think I should stick to 1.1 > > > > anyway). This means we definitely cannot expect end users to upgrade > their > > > > phones at all. > > > > > > > > (Speaking of which: LG is evil. Its case serves as evidence that Mozilla > > > > shouldn't be so confident about devices always being > upgradeable/hackable: > > > > hardware vendors will always ultimately do whatever they want, regardless > > > > of their users' best interest). > > > > > > > > But there's still hope. I haven't been through the Marketplace submission > > > > process yet, so I can only speak from what I read. The Marketplace review > > > > criteria [1] state that, apart from checking the manifest, a reviewer > will > > > > use the app for a few minutes. Also, Lisa tells us on this thread that > 1.1 > > > > is being used for reviewing. > > > > > > > > My perception is that the apps available on the marketplace right now are > > > > not terribly complex. If this is true, reviewers should be able to catch > > > > these problems. Also, the criteria say that reviewers may be able to > point > > > > developers in the right direction when problems are found. This could > > > > potentially help a lot. I wonder if the Marketplace team have data > > > > available on how this is working out so far. > > > > > > > > I wonder how much of a problem the current situation is after all. For > > > > example, how many owners of FxOS devices are not developers? FxOS phones > > > > lack some very popular apps (eg: WhatsApp). Why would these people choose > > > > theses devices in the first place? Do they actually care about apps? > Maybe > > > > they are just content with basic phone functionality and browsing. > > > > > > > > If this is the case, then all this is still not a problem. It will > become a > > > > problem in the future, as new web technologies emerge that are not > > > > supported by 1.3 or whatever comes later, but we'll still be in a better > > > > place. Mozilla's strategy of starting FxOS by kindling the fire with a > > > > couple sub-standar versions will have paid off. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Marketplace/Submission/Marketplace_review_criteria > > > > > > > > > > > > On 30 April 2014 23:37, Lisa Brewster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not that it's a very high bar to beat, but there will definitely be > better > > > > > support for Flame than ZTE Open. + Asa, who might have details to > share. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[email protected]> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 5:27 PM > > > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > > > Subject: Re: Baseline target platform > > > > > > > > > > >Lisa, I hope those of us who choose to buy a "Flame" on the open > market, > > > > > >since we're not eligible for a Mozilla-supplied device, will not > suffer > > > > > >from the same dismal fate as those of us who bought a ZTE Open. I > just the > > > > > >other day managed to get a home-compiled build of 1.4 flashed to my > open, > > > > > >and since I got the device in September of last year it's been > nothing but > > > > > >trouble. If there was a partnership between ZTE and Mozilla to support > > > > > >developers, I didn't see *any* evidence of it. > > > > > > > > > > > >Is there in fact a plan, strategy, web site, whatever for supporting > > > > > >"Flame" devices for those who plunk down the cash for one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Lisa Brewster > > > > > ><[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Pablo, this is a very articulate outline of our current areas of > > > > > >> fragmentation. Thanks for writing it up! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I feel some of your same pain, here's what I can add from an app > review > > > > > >> perspective. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> By default, today we test apps on v1.1, because that's the latest > > > > > >> commercially available version. During submission, developers have > the > > > > > >> ability to specify that certain api's are required, in which case > the > > > > > >>app > > > > > >> will not be shown to users whose devices don't support those api's. > Api > > > > > >> support will vary by hardware capabilities and Firefox OS version. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Feature detection is the right approach here philosophically, but in > > > > > >> practice it causes edge cases where not all features can be detected > > > > > >>yet, > > > > > >> or sometimes there are platform bugs that cause the app to break on > > > > > >> earlier versions of Firefox OS. When this happens, we ask that the > > > > > >> developer specify the min version and requirements in the app > > > > > >>description. > > > > > >> We'll review on up to v1.3 on a Keon. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Devices running v1.3 will be released in the near future, which > puts us > > > > > >>in > > > > > >> a complicated spot. Standardizing on the Flame reference device is > the > > > > > >> answer here, but will have tradeoffs ensuring app compatibility for > > > > > >>users > > > > > >> who can't update. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> Kind regards, > > > > > >> Lisa Brewster [:adora] > > > > > >> Marketplace App Review Manager > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Pablo Brasero Moreno <[email protected]> > > > > > >> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 at 4:44 PM > > > > > >> To: <[email protected]> > > > > > >> Subject: Re: Baseline target platform > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >On 29 April 2014 19:02, Fabricio C Zuardi <[email protected]> > > > > > >>wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> FxOS 1.1 is our personal IE6 here in Brazil alreadyŠ > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >Oh God... > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >What target do people develop for then? 1.1 or 1.0.1? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >According to MDN both versions are based on Gecko 18, although 1.1 > has > > > > > >> >some > > > > > >> >additional APIs, which I take are the ones listed in the release > > > > > >>notes[1]. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >Assuming I don't need any of these APIs, is there a reason to use > > > > > >>1.0.1 as > > > > > >> >my baseline, or can I stay with 1.1? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >Thank you! > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/notes/1.1#webapis > > > > > >> >-- > > > > > >> >Pablo Brasero Moreno > > > > > >> >[email protected] > > > > > >> >_______________________________________________ > > > > > >> >dev-webapps mailing list > > > > > >> >[email protected] > > > > > >> >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> dev-webapps mailing list > > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > > >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb; Computational Journalism on a > Stick > > > > > >http://j.mp/CompJournoStickOverview > > > > > > > > > > > >My poltergeist can beat up your zeitgeist. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > >dev-webapps mailing list > > > > > >[email protected] > > > > > >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > dev-webapps mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Pablo Brasero Moreno > > > > [email protected] > > This seems pretty similar to > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=793884 > _______________________________________________ > dev-webapps mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > -- Pablo Brasero Moreno [email protected] _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
