Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: > Can the people who have concerns about the NetworkInformation API please > provide the feedback to google on this blink-dev thread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/UVfNMH50aaQ/FEQNujAuBgAJ In short,

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

Can the people who have concerns about the NetworkInformation API please provide the feedback to google on this blink-dev thread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/UVfNMH50aaQ/CXY6S39TBQAJ In particular, I think they tried to consider privacy in this part of the spec:

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:31 PM, wrote: > On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 12:51:10 AM UTC+11, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I'm not really following this argument. Usually when a document has been > > floating > > around a long time but clearly has basic design issues and

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/22/16 10:31 PM, mcace...@mozilla.com wrote: (e.g., Boris' somewhat esoteric network setup) Just to check, are you talking about my typical setup for accessing the internet (which is totally non-esoteric laptop talks to wifi talks to ISP) or the "privacy leak" cases? > Most people

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 12:51:10 AM UTC+11, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I'm not really following this argument. Usually when a document has been > floating > around a long time but clearly has basic design issues and can't get > consensus, > even when a major vendor has implemented it,

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/19/2016 06:21 PM, Edmund Wong wrote: Eric Rescorla wrote: I'm also concerned that this spec does not seem to take into account multipath or multihoming, both of which seem relevant here. Say that I have a device with both a cellular and WiFi link and I attempt to use both of them in some

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:58 PM, wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:33:48 AM UTC+11, Tantek Çelik wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Boris Zbarsky <> wrote: > > > On 12/15/16 12:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: > > >> > > >> Its more information than nothing. > >

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:38:45 AM UTC+11, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2016-12-15 6:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 12/15/16 6:15 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >> (I personally agree with most of what you said, except that I'm > >> convinced that we should expose that one bit.) > > > >

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 3:48:10 AM UTC+11, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > The only potential for user control through this API is if a noticeable > portion of websites used this API to decide whether to give the users a > "low-res" version, and for the browser to provide some kind of a UI to >

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:33:48 AM UTC+11, Tantek Çelik wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Boris Zbarsky <> wrote: > > On 12/15/16 12:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: > >> > >> Its more information than nothing. > > > > > > I'm not sure it is. At least when you have nothing you _know_ you

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I'm also concerned that this spec does not seem to take into account > multipath or multihoming, both of which seem relevant here. Say that I have > a device with both a cellular and WiFi link and I attempt to use both of > them in some fashion (depending on the remote IP

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > We already do network change detection now, ISTR; could we pop a > doorhanger when we get a network change event, of the form of something > like "maintain 'expensive data' status Y/N?"...? No more doorhangers please. I

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 2016-12-18 4:16 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > When reading a thread about a new API or feature such as… > > Le 16 déc. 2016 à 04:39, Ehsan Akhgari a écrit : >> From what I remember, the argument for shipping >> this API was that web developers have been asking for this

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Gervase Markham wrote: We already do network change detection now, ISTR; could we pop a doorhanger when we get a network change event, of the form of something like "maintain 'expensive data' status Y/N?"...? Nice idea! However the network changes we detect currently

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 16/12/16 20:25, Jason Duell wrote: > So a switch that toggles the "network is expensive" bit, plus turns off > browser updates, phishing list fetches, etc? I can see how this would be > nice for power users on a tethered cell phone network. One issue would be > to make sure users don't forget

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

When reading a thread about a new API or feature such as… Le 16 déc. 2016 à 04:39, Ehsan Akhgari a écrit : > From what I remember, the argument for shipping > this API was that web developers have been asking for this for years, > and they are basically happy to know

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:25:03PM -0800, Jason Duell wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Tantek Çelik > wrote: > > > > > Honestly this is starting to sound more and more like a need for a > > "Minimal Network" variant of the "Work Offline" option we have in > >

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Jason Duell wrote: > So a switch that toggles the "network is expensive" bit, plus turns off > browser updates, phishing list fetches, etc? Windows 10 has such a switch, although I suspect it's up to applications to opt-in. An API to query

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > > Honestly this is starting to sound more and more like a need for a > "Minimal Network" variant of the "Work Offline" option we have in > Firefox (which AFAIK no other current browser has), since no amount of >

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 15/12/16 14:20, Daniel Stenberg wrote: >> Looking at that collection of existing user, basically all of them want >> the user to anser this question: >> >> "Use expensive traffic (y/n)" > > And this should be an

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 15/12/16 14:20, Daniel Stenberg wrote: > Looking at that collection of existing user, basically all of them want > the user to anser this question: > > "Use expensive traffic (y/n)" And this should be an OS-level switch which the browser and other apps both respect and reflect. Doesn't

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 2016-12-15 6:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 6:15 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> (I personally agree with most of what you said, except that I'm >> convinced that we should expose that one bit.) > > Exposing this one bit makes a lot of sense to me. > >> From a more practical

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

It seems pretty premature in this process to trying to hack around the API not expressing what we wanted to make. If what we want to express is "is this link free" then let's make the API say that. -Ekr On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16,

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 2) Figure out a way to map the one bit of information we actually want to > expose into some sort of values that look like the existing API. Change the > spec as needed to allow tweaks we want to make here (e.g. to allow

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/15/16 6:15 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: (I personally agree with most of what you said, except that I'm convinced that we should expose that one bit.) Exposing this one bit makes a lot of sense to me. From a more practical perspective, we have two shipping implementations of this API.

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 2016-12-15 2:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 2:39 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> FWIW I was one of the people who were involved in the discussions around >> this for Firefox OS. From what I remember, the argument for shipping >> this API was that web developers have been asking for this

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/15/2016 09:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/15/16 2:39 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: FWIW I was one of the people who were involved in the discussions around this for Firefox OS. From what I remember, the argument for shipping this API was that web developers have been asking for this for

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 12:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: >> >> Its more information than nothing. > > > I'm not sure it is. At least when you have nothing you _know_ you have > nothing, so might think about other ways to find out what you

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/15/16 12:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: Its more information than nothing. I'm not sure it is. At least when you have nothing you _know_ you have nothing, so might think about other ways to find out what you want to know. This way you think you know something but you don't. Bluetooth

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/15/16 2:39 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: FWIW I was one of the people who were involved in the discussions around this for Firefox OS. From what I remember, the argument for shipping this API was that web developers have been asking for this for years, and they are basically happy to know the

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 2016-12-15 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 11:00 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: >> We are shipping the connection type information on android already. >> Since >> FF32 as far as I can tell. > > That's... not great. Especially since there was no intent to ship at > the time. FWIW Chromium

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 2016-12-15 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 11:00 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: >> We are shipping the connection type information on android already. >> Since >> FF32 as far as I can tell. > > That's... not great. Especially since there was no intent to ship at > the time. FWIW Chromium

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

Hi All - Generally speaking releasing more information about what's behind the firewall is an anti-goal. I have the same reaction others in this thread have - this api is much more information than what is really needed, and the information it provides is of questionable usefulness anyhow. The

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 15/12/2016 17:20, Ben Kelly wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/15/16 11:23 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: if (navigator.connect.downlinkMax > 100) { // perform low-priority background downloads } Why is the downlinkMax the right thing to be

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 11:23 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: > >> if (navigator.connect.downlinkMax > 100) { >> // perform low-priority background downloads >> } >> > > Why is the downlinkMax the right thing to be checking here, though?

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/15/16 11:23 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: if (navigator.connect.downlinkMax > 100) { // perform low-priority background downloads } Why is the downlinkMax the right thing to be checking here, though? Again, outside of the "cellphone on a cell network" case, the last-hop bandwidth tells you

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > OK, so how would one use this API in practice? if (navigator.connect.downlinkMax > 100) { // perform low-priority background downloads } ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/15/16 11:00 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: What is an IPR commitment? IPR == "intellectual property rights". In the context of specs, mostly patent issues. It seems we can implement WPT tests. I don't know what you consider "an actual spec" Well, something that gets a wider look than WICG

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 3:28 AM, Andrea Marchesini wrote: > >> Spec: https://w3c.github.io/netinfo/ >> > > Is there any plan to have this turned into an actual spec, complete with > IPR commitments, testcases, wider review, etc? >

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:28 AM, Andrea Marchesini wrote: > Our implementation of the NetworkInformation interface does not follow the > latest version of the spec. I'm planning to work on it. Then, I would like > to enable this interface by default - currently it's

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Looking at the use cases document at , it seems like people generally care more about things like "bandwidth costs money" and "how much bandwidth do we expect?" than about the actual physical transport,

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 3:28 AM, Andrea Marchesini wrote: > >> Spec: https://w3c.github.io/netinfo/ >> > > Is there any plan to have this turned into an actual spec, complete with > IPR commitments, testcases, wider review, etc? > >

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On 12/15/16 3:28 AM, Andrea Marchesini wrote: Spec: https://w3c.github.io/netinfo/ Is there any plan to have this turned into an actual spec, complete with IPR commitments, testcases, wider review, etc? Have we done a privacy review of this spec? Why should a webpage ever know whether I'm