W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 11:19:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4837EBB6.5060905@mtld.mobi>
To: Jeff Sonstein <jeffs@it.rit.edu>
CC: public-bpwg@w3.org

I should preface this continuation of discussion with the point that I 
think we are talking about a relatively minor part of the document :-)

On 23/05/2008 19:36, Jeff Sonstein wrote:
> On May 23, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
>> I agree with everything that Jeff is saying below (well, I could argue
>> some points but that would spoil the effect)
> 
> <grin/>
> 
>> Or to put it another way, at what point do we foresee that the
>> difference is processing power will be immaterial?
> 
> for the purposes of Web-based operations?
> I'd guess that will be within a couple of years
> at the high end
> but that is just my guess
> (and I have often been too conservative in these estimates)
> 
> but for now
> and for a BP document likely to remain for a couple of years
> I think the differences are material enough
> to use them as an example

In the text of the BPs themselves we speak of this limitiation, so it is 
mildly inconsistent for processing power to be given as an example.

> 
>> I think it is arguable, for example in respect of bandwidth available,
>> that the point-in-time differential between fixed and mobile is actually
>> increasing.
> 
> hmmmm
> not sure I'd buy that argument
> with "WiFi" showing up on an increasing number of mobile devices

Again, that's not really my point. Which is that if you draw a graph of 
bandwidth against date for what you can get down a wire and what you can 
get over-the-air what will you see? Anyway, if the limiting factor is 
switching capacity rather than connection bandwidth then the point 
becomes moot, but it is still an enduring feature of mobile.

> but hey
> is there another example that you would be happier with?
> one other than "limited device processing capability"??
> 
> the example we are trying to work out is for the xxxx at the end of this 
> phrase:
> "as opposed to those that are likely to disappear quickly as
>  the technology evolves (e.g. xxxx)"

I think the problem is that the evolution of the technology is not 
really relevant, because evolution of mobile technology is likely to be 
   paralleled by evolution of non-mobile technology. This reads as 
though mobile is playing a game of catch up in which it will be successful.

It might be better to cast this as the differences becoming immaterial.

> 
> I think we all agree the tech *is* likely to evolve
> and we are just trying to say here
> why in this BP doc we are placing "additional weight"
> on some aspects of the mobile context
> 
> a different example of problems we think are going away
>      Real Soon Now
> would be okay by me
> 
> jeffs
> 
> -- 
> "What is poetry
>  and if you know what poetry is
>  what is prose?"
> - Gertrude Stein -
> ============
> 
> Jeff Sonstein
> 
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/
> http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/
> http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/jeffs.asc
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/emailDisclaimer.html
> 
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 10:20:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC