RE: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0

Rotan.Hanrahan wrote:

> It is a well established fact that the W3C Director is against breaking
> the Web (not the "net").

Thanks for pointing that out, I knew it was something like that... I
certainly hope I didn't mislead or confuse anyone on that count. :-)

>
> Depending on how you choose to measure client capabilities, every
> Web-enabled device belongs to some sub-category. Mobile Web-enabled
> devices will soon outnumber fixed (traditional) Web-enabled devices. The
> diversity that is seen in its extreme within the mobile world is also
> seen to some degree in the non-mobile world. The need to address
> diversity is therefore applicable to the entire Web.

That is like saying everything and nothing.  Please define the 'diversity'
you are referring to.  Are you talking about browser rendering engines,
screen size/resolution, what do you mean exactly?  I have a hard time with
generalities when it comes to technical questions so please humour me, I
am afraid I'm a little slow in that regard.

>
> The work of the DDWG supports the idea of maintaining a single Web. We
> wish to enable authors "code" to standards, and enable the
> infrastructure use agent detection (a part of context-awareness) to
> guide any adaptation/selection processes necessary to deliver
> appropriate representations of the authored resources.

So each vendor defines what an "appropriate representation of the authored
resources" is? Is that what you mean?

>
> Current agent-detection technologies are insufficient because in many
> cases the determination of the agent is not supported by sufficient
> understanding of what the agent requires. The proposed DDR fills this
> gap.

Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds suspiciously like another way of
pitching proprietary rendering engines which originally led to (IMHO) the
foundation of the W3C and related bodies to provide some standardization
without which we'd really be in a broken web.

>
> The DDR will have its most immediate impact on the quality of content
> presentation on the diversity of mobile devices, but it will also have
> an impact on all other types of Web-enabled device.

What exactly do you mean when you say "quality of content presentation"? 
Quality according to what standards?

Now, I don't know you and I don't mean any offense as I'm simply curious,
but are you perhaps in the employ of a device vendor?

Be Well,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


>
> Regards,
> ---Rotan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Sam Sotiropoulos
> Sent: 04 May 2006 22:52
> To: Tim Berners-Lee
> Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org; tag
> Subject: Re: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0
>
>
> Mr. Lee,
>
> Just a few questions: I understood that you were against 'breaking the
> net' so I am curious to see your comments on this spec. Is this extra
> layer of complexity designed to cater to a sub-category of internet
> enabled devices really needed?  Can we not code according to standards
> and expect that the existing infrastructure and agent detection tools be
> a sufficient model of approach?
>
> Amiably,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>>
>> I have suggested that the TAG and DAWG look at this spec.
>>
>> Glancing through
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/
>> the following things occur to me.
>>
>> A requirement:
>>
>> a) 2.11.  Use-case 1. Utilization of device description information
>> from the DDR
>>
>>   The requirements don't say anything about cacheing.
>>
>>     If really every single request for content from a phone goes
>> through the flow show, the server will be under intolerable load and a
>
>> complete bottleneck.  It is clearly necessary for the content
>> provider, or an intermediate node, to keep a cache of previous
>> requests. This requires the cache control facilities
>>
>> and two informal thoughts:
>>
>> b) An unwritten requirement is that new technology is not invented
>> where existing technology exists.
>>
>> (For example, HTTP caching provides the facilities necessary (proxy
>> architecture, cache read-through, expiry time, etc) and do providing
>> the DDR lookup over HTTP clearly allows the client architecture.
>> SPARQL may provide a suitable protocol)
>>
>> c) "The Device Vendor develops, manages (e.g. updates existing device
>> profiles when devices are upgraded)". That's interesting.  I
>> understood that in the past, device vendrors have nor always been
>> forthcoming with such information.  Will the DDR only use vendor data,
>
>> or possibly third party data?  Clearly vendor data makes more sense,
>> so long as it is provided.  Presumably the DDR architecture is not
>> affected by this choice.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 6 May 2006 05:15:04 UTC