- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:35:28 +0000
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
On 12/12/12 17:00, Tobie Langel wrote: > For example, one could imagine an API to prefetch content, or an API to > upload large files (e.g. photographs) within a certain period of time and > call a WebWorker once done (or timed-out). > > The benefits are manifold. First of all, developers don't have to > understand implementation details of the networking protocols their app is > currently using. Instead they can convey intent ("it is critical to send > this data now", "I might need this in the future", etc.). Secondly, > there's a real incentive for developers to use these APIs as it opens up > features they did not have access to previously (background sync, etc.). > Thirdly, user agents / devices are able to fine tune how to best handle > this traffic, which is good as they are the ones that will get blamed for > high bandwidth usage or draining batteries. Fourthly users can decide at > the user agent level when and how to allow prefetching, background sync, > etc. (and special case certain apps where necessary). I'm not sure I understand what is the intent of this message. Do you think we should stop working on the Network Information specification and create other APIs instead? I completely agree that the API you listed would be useful. Actually I think Yandex did a proposal for a prefetch API (though, I think appcache should be able to handle that) and Jonas and I though about a synchronisation API for Firefox OS but was postponed. Although I agree with you regarding the usefulness of those APIs, I am not sure they would make the Network Information API useless. For example, how would you handle the use case of a game that has to pick low or high definition textures? -- Mounir
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 16:35:59 UTC