W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [vibration] proposed Note text for pattern truncation, ISSUE-149

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:35:21 +0000
To: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "Michael van Ouwerkerk" <mvanouwerkerk@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <603451EF-ED58-4EC2-B00C-A0D5914DD7CE@intel.com>

On Oct 11, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:

> On yesterday's teleconference we agreed to the following related to ISSUE-149:
> 
> [[
> RESOLUTION: Adopt proposal as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Oct/0012.html, adding Note that implementation may break into multiple pieces if list too long , potential concern if best effort does not meet application expectations
> ]]
> 
> I agreed to draft text for a Note related to pattern truncation. I propose the following Note (to be associated with step 3 in the adopted proposal):
> 
> [[
> <div class='note'>
> If the length of a pattern is greater than max length an implementation of this API could consider breaking the request effectively into multiple shorter requests internally to achieve the same effect, rather than ignoring what follows the max length.
> There are cases, however, where it is appropriate to ignore the pattern exceeding the max length. An example is if the length is so long that it would effectively create a denial of service attack on the user.  A web application might also make multiple requests if it is known to the application that the length is too long for some implementations and a possible gap in between patterns is acceptable.
> </div>
> ]]

Do implementers (e.g. Michael?) think the Note above would be helpful to have in the spec?

On a second pass, this still looks like an implementation detail to me, and I'd be a bit hesitant to put this into the spec if it does not lead to greater interop.

Also, the note is pretty elaborate in relation to the normative prose itself.

That said, I'd like us to not rush this in yet. However, should the group think this is helpful, I'll update the spec accordingly.

Thanks,

-Anssi
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 08:36:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:01 UTC