W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > July 2005

RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

From: Holley Kevin \(Centre\) <Kevin.Holley@O2.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:28:02 +0100
Message-ID: <729015D2FB03A041A00327DCD0836983890A0E@Uksthmsx014>
To: "Luca Passani" <luca.passani@openwave.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>, <www-mobile@w3.org>
So what happens if the mobile device doesn't have an IMEI?
 
For example, a PDA based browser.
 
Regards,
 
Kevin
 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luca Passani
	Sent: 22 July 2005 00:10
	To: public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?
	
	

	Yes, this is something we have discussed quite a few times in
the WURFL community. The idea is to have an extra table to match the
first part of the IMEI with a WURFL ID. This would allow an operator to
easily detect device capabilities even without an HTTP Request coming
from subscriber device.

	The reason why we have not embarked in such a project is that
developers typically do not have access to a device IMEI to start with.

	Having said this, there is increasing interest in WURFL coming
from operators, so I would say that IMEI support in WURFL is bound to
happen sooner or later.

	If you like this proposition (and you have a database of IMEI to
share and expertise in the field), please contact me offline. We could
work together on this for the developer community's benefit.

	 

	Thanks  

	 

	Luca

	 

	
  _____  


	From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Victor Servin
	Sent: 21 July 2005 14:55
	To: Rotan Hanrahan
	Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org; Steve Parker
	Subject: Re: Mobile phone capabilities list?

	 

	well in the way i see it most mobile development today, are
least for phones, are made towards content delivery and related things
so u usuallay need full information about phonecapabilities i mean gprs
type, Egprs type, Audio compatibility, video compatibility and so on. It
will be very difficult to fullfill the needs of several companies and
developers but it would be good to create a more standarized and
extensible model to do it. It would be also great to improve IMEI
databases cause if we think uaprofs are difficult to deal with, imei's
are impossible. Its there any project to try to merge this two
identifiers. In the end both of then are usefull to describe the same
device, at least when we talk about cell phones. 

	VJS
	
	 

	On 7/21/05, Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@mobileaware..com
<mailto:Rotan.Hanrahan@mobileaware.com> > wrote: 

	Several companies create and maintain their own validated device
information repositories, which are supersets of the information
available in public. However, it takes great effort to create these
repositories and they are generally created in support of specialised
products. As a consequence, these repositories are out of reach because
they are expensive. I am pleased to report that certain key suppliers of
such repositories/products are participating in W3C MWI, with the hope
that their experience may be applied to the situation that you suggest
is the case today. An extensible, accurate, verified, trusted baseline
repository of device descriptions is one of the items on the table,
which requires the participants to examine carefully how such a
repository might operate. Much of the work will be conducted with input
from the wider community, so I welcome and encourage the feedback
expressed on the public lists. 

	 

	---Rotan

	 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Steve Parker [mailto: sparker@well.com
<mailto:sparker@well.com> ]
	Sent: 21 July 2005 00:30
	To: Rotan Hanrahan; Holley Kevin (Centre); www-mobile@w3.org
	Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

	Formally, these are certainly the right standards/groups, but
the track record is disappointing in practise. In my experience, the
UAProf info actually supplied is not necessarily accurate or complete.
The URLs are not always present or correct. There is no mechanism or
procedure for correcting it - its entirely at the manufacturers' whim.
Even when the data are ok, there's a lot of useful parameters missing
from the standard. There's supposed to be a Java API, but I had to
report a bug in the JSR reference implementation months after it was
approved. It's very frustrating to anyone actually trying to cater for
all the different devices right now. Standards are one thing, but to get
something working, now, WURFL is the only show in town. I'm not an open
source zealot, but WURFL has gone further faster than the standards
bodies. It works as advertised, it's responsive, it's simple to use,
it's user extensible .

	 

	Steve

		-----Original Message-----
		From: www-mobile-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
		Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:07 PM 
		To: Holley Kevin (Centre); www-mobile@w3.org
		Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
		Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

		The UAProf information, where provided and validated,
can provide some essential and objective information about mobile
devices. It has been recognised, however, that in many domains of
content authoring and adaptation that such information is insufficient.
The DDWG will be exploring the bigger picture, and looking at ways that
a general device description repository could be achieved, such that it
can encompass UAProf and other sources of information, avoiding
replication of services, and providing the necessary features of
discovery, trust, efficiency and related information management issues.
The DDWG is specifically directed to liaise with UAProf and other
related groups to this end. Planned W3C Notes will explain in further
detail, and these shall get a public airing during this year. Input from
interested parties via the public mailing list will be encouraged. The
group will also solicit specific information from key parties where
appropriate. 

		 

		I hope this adds some clarity.

		 

		---Rotan.

		 

		 [ ... see mailing list archive for previous messages
... ] 

	 


=====================================================
This electronic message contains information from O2 which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
=====================================================
Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 15:28:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:12 UTC