W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-status@w3.org > March 2012

RE: Network Information API: new editor draft

From: Gyuyoung Kim <gyuyoung.kim@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:09:53 +0900
To: public-device-apis@w3.org, public-device-status@w3.org
Message-id: <002d01ccfc28$e99306c0$bcb91440$%kim@samsung.com>
> This specification has been made so it is easy to have an implementation
> very close to the requirements without following them fully. Mozilla's
> implementation isn't fully following the specs and will probably have to
> evolve in that way.

In my opinion, new editor draft is not bad as initial implementation. So, I
will implement this feature based on
this editor draft. I will keep update the implementation as the spec evolves
and will also participate in the spec discussion.


> I think it's "bandwidth" and I don't see any occurence of "bandwith". Am
> I missing your point?

In '6.1 Attributes' paragraph, it looks there is typo problem *bandwdith* as
below, 

============================================================================
==================================
6.1 Attributes

bandwidth of type double, readonly
      The attribute should return an estimation of the current *bandwdith*
in MB/s (Megabytes per seconds) ...
============================================================================
==================================

Sorry for the late reply too.

Cheers,
Gyuyoung

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mounir@lamouri.fr]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:01 PM
> To: public-device-apis@w3.org; public-device-status@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Network Information API: new editor draft
> 
> (I'm replying to public-device-status just in case of but this TF has
> been shut down, last I've heard.)
> 
> First of all, I'm glad to hear you are going to implement the new
> Network Information API draft in Webkit! :)
> 
> On 02/23/2012 06:24 AM, Gyuyoung Kim wrote:
> > I agree with most part of the new draft. By the way, it seems Mozilla is
> > implementing bandwidth based on empirical observation. Though I'm not
> sure
> > whether that is right way, it looks good to me for now. I'm going to
> update
> > existing WebKit patch based on new editor draft.
> 
> This specification has been made so it is easy to have an implementation
> very close to the requirements without following them fully. Mozilla's
> implementation isn't fully following the specs and will probably have to
> evolve in that way.
> 
> Webkit doesn't have to follow the same path.
> 
> > P.S. There is typo: *bandwdith*. Please fix it.
> 
> I think it's "bandwidth" and I don't see any occurence of "bandwith". Am
> I missing your point?
> 
> And sorry for the late reply.
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Mounir
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 06:10:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 March 2012 06:10:26 GMT