Re: sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3

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