W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:36:23 -0600
To: <ifette@google.com>
CC: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBFE0F75.31E2%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
My apologies – you're correct. That is the current time. We'll add a
processing time.


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  "Ian Fette   (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
Reply-To:  <ifette@google.com>
Date:  Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:34 AM
To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc:  Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>,
Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

> What are the units for that time? That looks suspiciously like just the
> current time.
> 
> Right now (time of this email) the time since the epoch is 1339601660 seconds
> since the epoch.
> 
> I think what you posted as REQUEST_TIME was simply the current time, not any
> processing time.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I just posted the hit.
>> 
>> REQUEST_TIME = 1339601438
>> 
>> How many people are actually doing Mobile UA detection? 10,000 companies?
>> There are now close to 650m Web servers out there. It's minuscule.
>> 
>> UA detection is one thing, checking back to a blacklist that may or may not
>> be up to date is something completely different.
>> 
>> And if you're already supporting DNT then why the heck would you reject MSIE
>> 10 anyway?
>> 
>> 
>> Peter
>> ___________________________________
>> Peter J. Cranstone
>> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>> 
>> 
>> From:  "Ian Fette   (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
>> Reply-To:  <ifette@google.com>
>> Date:  Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:29 AM
>> 
>> To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
>> Cc:  Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>,
>> Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >> But there are cases you can detect where the setting was, more likely
>>>>>> than not, NOT set by the user.
>>>> 
>>>> Again ­ you'll have to show me the code that does this. I've already posted
>>>> mine to the forum.
>>>> 
>>>> Microsoft were smart ­ the real compliance issue at stake here is "WHO" set
>>>> the flag. I would argue that you can not determine that with anywhere near
>>>> the accuracy required to deliver a consistent online experience. And even
>>>> if you could the performance hit on the servers is so huge that no admin
>>>> would ever make those changes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What you claim is a "huge performance hit on the servers" is something that
>>> almost every large site is already doing to redirect mobile users to a
>>> specific site, tell IE6 users they're unsupported, etc.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 15:37:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC