W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > March 2007

RE: Device description structures and families

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:50:00 -0000
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D3EA356D@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: "Smith, Kevin, VF-Group" <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>

> This would assume a common syntax for representing the family rules.

And this is precisely where I think the work that Josť is leading will help us.

---Rotan

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Kevin, VF-Group [mailto:Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com] 
Sent: 20 March 2007 15:48
To: Rotan Hanrahan; public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Device description structures and families

Hi Rotan, 

Thanks for the clarification...

Another use case is content filtering, e.g. indicating that 'this family gets a movie, while this family gets an image'. Resolution of the expression would involve confirming the requesting device is of a given family. Then the appropriate link or object would be presented.

As both yourself and Josť say, there could be benefit in sharing some of these family classifications: for example, a games publisher could create a set of rules as to which devices can support their latest games for the best user experience (mature J2ME, good CPU, decent resolution etc.) and this could be represented as a family (possibly namespace bound, eg gamescorp.bestSupport). They could also provide minimum criteria for legacy games (gamescorp.justSupport). Maybe the provisioning of these family rules can be in a DDR extension, or it could be possible in the query to the DDR to ask for the family rules to be fetched from an external source (such as gamescorp themselves). This would assume a common syntax for representing the family rules.

Cheers
Kevin 

 




[...]
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 15:50:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:13 UTC