- From: Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:15:38 +0100
- To: "Luca Passani" <luca.passani@openwave.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>, <www-mobile@w3.org>
In case my point was missed: for a device to operate on a carrier's network there must be an IMEI somewhere in the pipeline, but you cannot always assume that the IMEI can be reliably mapped to the device that is actually making the requests.
The WAI people have had this problem for years. They've often tried to explain that the User-Agent header is not necessarily the definitive way to discover the client properties, as any blind user with a screen reader observing their browsing activity will tell you...
CC/PP made a step closer, and lack of implementation results in some steps backward. Hopefully this won't be the case for too much longer. (Yes, I said "hopefully". I can't make any committments or predictions here.) Meanwhile, UAs, IMEIs and other signature.pattern logic will have to do.
---Rotan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Luca Passani [mailto:luca.passani@openwave.com]
Sent: Mon 25/07/2005 23:00
To: public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?
>Sure, IMEI mapping might work in most use cases, but not all.
Rotan, you wrote a very long email just to basically give yourself an answer
at the end ;)
For those who may have missed it, WURFL is all about working in most cases.
The fact is that "work in most cases here, work in most cases there, you are
pretty soon talking about serving the right content to millions of
devices..."
Luca
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotan Hanrahan [mailto:Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com]
Sent: 25 July 2005 22:49
To: Luca Passani; public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?
One of the mobile devices I use on a regular basis is a wireless-enabled
iPaq. I use it at wifi hotspots, particularly at airports and cafes. Its
communication pathway does not involve what you would describe as a mobile
carrier. It does not have a SIM card, and obviously does not have an IMEI.
Yet I consider this device to be a legitimate mobile device.
I also have a GPRS card. It has an IMEI. But you can't tell from the IMEI if
I have inserted the card into one of my laptops, my tablet or that slightly
older iPaq I have that has a PCMCIA adaptor sleeve. And what about when I
used to have the GPRS plugged into my old notebook and used "connection
sharing" to link my iPaq via ad-hoc so it could surf?
Sure, IMEI mapping might work in most use cases, but not all.
---Rotan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Luca Passani [mailto:luca.passani@openwave.com]
Sent: Mon 25/07/2005 19:39
To: public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?
This is an interesting point, which brings about two questions:
- since you work for O2, I am assuming you know better.
Honestly, I was assuming that there is no such thing as a device without
IMEI as long as it is accepted on a carrier's Network. Don't BlackBerry's
have IMEIs? I know that operators have databases of IMEI and they are
building services on top of IMEI info.
- Does O2 possess a way to associate IMEI to device
capabilities? if yes, how is this achieved?
Luca
_____
From: Holley Kevin (Centre) [mailto:Kevin.Holley@O2.com]
Sent: 25 July 2005 17:28
To: Luca Passani; public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?
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 22:16:13 UTC