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

Re: sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3

From: Jeff Sonstein <jeffs@it.rit.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:15:03 -0400
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1BC83DC0-9C29-4423-92A2-E0520755FF00@it.rit.edu>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>

On May 24, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Jo Rabin wrote:

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

I agree

> 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.

then a different example seems in order

> 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.

I think at some point the diffs in these capabilities
are or become
a difference that makes no difference (to the user)

> 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.

1) I think "the evolution of the technology"
_is_ relevant to a document about
best-practices in a particular realm at a particular moment

2) I agree it is useful to separate
that which is likely to remain diff about mobile
[location, size, etc]
from that which is (or is likely to become)
"diffs that don't seem different" (to end-users)

3) I think "eg"-type example(s) are
A Good Thing

I didn't mean to go on so here...
not so big a point
must need more coffee
(must get sleeping cat off monitor)

jeffs
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 13:15:54 UTC

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