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) jeffsReceived on Saturday, 24 May 2008 13:15:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:52 UTC