- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:08:24 +0200
- To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)" <BS3131@att.com>
- Cc: "James Salsman" <jsalsman@gmail.com>, "James Salsman" <jsalsman@talknicer.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
On Jun 29, 2010, at 23:09 , SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote: > The intended scope of this discussion is much narrower I’m afraid than what you intend with the list below. I am concerned only with the definition of activeConnections as exposed through this API. As I said the determination of a preferred connection (or recommended priority) based upon QoS measures (leaving net neutrality and privacy out as a “quality” – especially since they are well beyond the scope of this discussion) is not the intent of the activeConnections attribute and should not factor into its determination. As far as I can tell based on previous discussion (and the general way in which we conduct our work) this characterisation is entirely correct. It is extremely difficult to produce any piece of technology that is at the same time useful, and not usable by people with whom one disagrees or in contexts which one may not like. Apart from perhaps very rare occurrences, we make tools — not the rules. Unless information of a purely technical nature can be brought forth concerning the relevance of a variety of additional QoS metrics that would justify the additional complexity involved in determining preferred or prioritised connections this topic is and will remained resolved as defining "activeConnections" to the list of available IP-compatible networks. If there is sufficient demand to expose more information about networks so that authors may include code to select which one they prefer, the we can look into a specification covering those purposes. -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 13:08:55 UTC