On Sep 16, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Attila Csipa wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Skarpness, Mark <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > If MeeGo then permits Surrounds-dependent apps to be labelled "Compliant" then > there is no addidional burden placed on a vendor since they can simply refuse > to > allow them on their device/store? No - that is a different problem. If compliance says that compliant apps can have external dependencies, then every compliant device MUST support those dependencies and ensure they are available to every device. That is the burden we are debating.
Even though they might never ever allow an application with those dependencies to reach the device ? That sounds like quite a bit of dead weight, especially if, say, Python apps start aspiring for MeeGo compliancy at some point. Yes. If we don't require all compliant devices to have the ability to run all compliant apps, then compliance is pointless. > This demonstrates *exactly* what I expected and I fully support and comprehend > it. Vendors are *NOT* obliged to support compliant apps so allowing some apps > to > be labelled "compliant" does not put any mandatory burden on vendore or app > stores. Device vendors are obliged to have the ability to run every compliant app. They are not obliged to allow the user to install every compliant app. That's OK. I'm curious, though, how this reflects on, say, hardware limitations - for example if someone submits an app that requires 1GB of RAM, there can be devices that cannot provide those resources and hence no ability to run it, while others will. Does that mean that devices can 'lose' compliancy over time, or that, depending on hardware, Compliant application might still not work on Compliant devices even with the same UX and same target API version, depending on actual resource requirements ? There will be minimum hardware requirements in the spec - coming to the profiles very soon. Compliance will be given for each MeeGo version - so over time, older devices will cease being compliant to newer MeeGo versions (of course they would maintain their compliance to the older MeeGo versions that were supported by the device). Best regards, Attila _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
