- 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