URLs and access issues

Even the chances of getting a new data format recognised are hard. A new protocol would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.Of course, there's nothing wrong with using HTTP. It is, after all, what is used to retrieve CSS files, robots.txt files, and other files that are effectively metadata. All you need to do is define a metadata file/format for site descriptions and you have a workable solution without having to invent a new protocol. And the URLs can still be small.
 
Site descriptions are issues for the Semantic Web people. Perhaps they could comment?
 
---Rotan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Combelles [mailto:nicolas.combelles@apocope.com]
Sent: 09 August 2005 09:40
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: 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

 [...]