RE: Best Practices document - not best practices

> what are the chances for creating a new 'mobile protocol' so instead of
having the 'http://' suffix we can use 'mob://'  ?
 
I would say ... none .. :oD. Simply because a protocol as a meaning and is
used by browser to use the correct protocol. That's not something you can or
should customize.
 
The mobile version of the http protocole used on is wstp (or something like
that) and is translated by telcos gateways to http for wap1 handset that
doesn't handle http directly.
So anyway, users always use http URLs.
 
People having better knowledge of protocols might give you a better answer,
but I think you got my point.
 
 
It is funny how this topic "Best Practices document - not best practices" is
hard to kill. I created a new one specially for URL and access issue ..
remember ?
 
 
Cheers,
Nicolas Combelles
Apocope
 

  _____  

De : public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] De la
part de marcus saw
Envoyé : mardi 9 août 2005 04:51
À : Rotan Hanrahan; public-bpwg@w3.org
Objet : RE: Best Practices document - not best practices


Off the cuff idea but what are the chances for creating a new 'mobile
protocol' so instead of having the 'http://' suffix we can use 'mob://'  ?
 
Or would this be too hard to implement as it could potentially mean a lot of
exisitng browsers would not understand the new suffix?
 
I am personally against anything that increases the length of the URL you
have to type into a phone ( eg: sub directories http://something.com/mobile
) because phone keyboards are a pain to use due to their size and they will
probably remain tiny for the foreseable future.
 
Getting back on track - if it is possible to provide a new protocol for
mobile content then it would be equally feasible to provide a new protocol
to define the 'summary' content or 'full' content as discussed previously.
 
Marcus Saw.
http://cellsuite.blogspot.com


Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com> wrote:


Finding a standard naming scheme might be a problem. Not everyone speaks
english :)

Yet it is technically possible to do so, and maybe we could even convince
webmasters to follow.

However, would it not be better if you could communicate your preference for
"detailed", "summary", etc. using a different mechanism? User preferences
are supposed to be one of the things that CC/PP vocabularies could capture.
I could then just use the http://news.bbc.co.uk/ URL without any path, and
my preference information would immediately tell the site how I would like
the home page to be represented. The CC/PP information would also indicate
the properties of my device, so the site could now offer me a representation
of the page that fits both my specific requirements and the consgtraints
imposed by the device I am using.

Of course, in practice, things like CC/PP are not sufficiently well
supported to enable this to work (yet) so we could look for an interim
solution based on URL paths. Unlike paths, the benefit of using a method
like CC/PP is that you don't have to choose arbitrary names.

What if we decided the words in the path would be in Gaelic? I'd have no
problem understanding what http://news.bbc.co.uk/ceannlinte/ meant, but
would you?

OK, perhaps we go international and use Esperanto. Would
http://news.bbc.co.uk/resumo/ make sense?

Putting things into the URL doesn't always help, even if it seems like a
good idea at the start.

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Crevola [mailto:andrea.crevola@3juice.com]
Sent: 08 August 2005 14:18
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices document - not best practices





Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/detailed/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/summary/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/bite-sized/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/headlines/
> 

I think that you are right: only two thoughts:

1) following this idea, we need - I suppose - is a sort of standard for 
naming sub-folders (or sub-domains). One reason for that is avoiding 
that every webmaster defines his set of *versions*... so our user may 
find more quickly the version tailored for him.

2) we need a mechanism (technical or logical) that could let the user be 
aware of the quantity and the quality of information that is behind 
these urls. At the moment - I think, but that's my opinion - the word 
"mobile" gives a - rude - idea of the amount of text, images ecc. So, 
how we can mantain this suggestion using other words?

Are these arguments have something to do with best practices in mobile 
websites?

Andrea






  _____  

Yahoo!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/messenger/*http://uk.messen
ger.yahoo.com> Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/messenger/*http://uk.beta.m
essenger.yahoo.com> worldwide with voicemail