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

RE: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary

From: Rhys Lewis <rhys@volantis.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 01:51:13 -0600 (MDT)
To: "'Andrea Trasatti'" <atrasatti@mtld.mobi>, 'Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca' <jmcf@tid.es>
Cc: <public-ddwg@w3.org>, "'DDR Vocabulary'" <public-ddr-vocab@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a901c8065b$bd74d400$981e140a@volantisuk>

Hello everyone,

Just want to point out that a hierarchy such as Andrea describes is
currently how the ontology[1] is arranged..

The Delivery Context includes a Device and NetworkSupport. The Device
includes DeviceHardware, WebBrowserSupport, OperatingSystemSupport etc.
The NetworkSupport includes information about available bearers and the
active bearer.

The WebBrowserSupport includes available Web Browsers and the active
WebBrowser.

Each WebBrowser includes information about its name, supplier and page
markup and script language support etc. There is also a crude attempt to
characterise the quality of page markup support as a list of supported or
unsupported features, but that needs work.

Best wishes
Rhys

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2007/uwa/editors-drafts/DeliveryContextOntology/2007-10-
31/DCOntology.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
> Sent: 03 October 2007 17:29
> To: Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca
> Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org; DDR Vocabulary
> Subject: Re: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary
>
>
> I agree that the "usable screen size" can be hard to measure
> and that a lot of factors can modify the result, especially
> if you think of scrollbars that appear only when needed.
>
> I think that there's a mistake in your definition of which
> WURFL- capabilities are in the Browser scope or in the DC. In
> theory they are ALL part of the DC. For example you write the
> XHTML Basic support is a browser "feature", but that the
> preferred markup is part of the DC. I think that we should
> limit our scope to what is meaningful for the device and the
> browser and leave the DC to other groups or other
> initiatives. All of the properties that you listed are a
> property of the browser first and later of the DC. The
> browser might support XHTML Basic. A transcoding proxy might
> support XHTML Basic and convert it into WML 1.0 because your
> browser only supports WML 1.0.
>  From a server perspective you might never know it.
>
> For the purpose of the Vocabulary we should limit ourselves
> to what is meaningful for the device. The DC, in fact, is
> built  on top of what the device (and OS and browser and
> network connection) can do.
> The full DC is a morphing beast that you can hardly manage as
> things are today.
>
> I see a few options here (in no particular order):
> a) we think "Usable screen size" is not meaningful for the
> Core Vocabulary, so we drop it as a group
> b) we think "Usable screen size" is important, so we work on it
> b.1) since it's a complex task, we can refine the definition,
> clear up what we mean
> b.2) since it's not entirely in our scope we can define it
> better and limit OUR definition to what we think is in scope
> b.3) it's fine as it is
> b.4) we are ambitious and want to describe it better and
> extend its meaning in the Core Vocabulary
>
>
> If you have more options on your mind you can add to the list.
>
> - Andrea
>
> Il giorno 01/ott/07, alle ore 16:38, Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca ha
> scritto:
>
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As a result of the analysis made on [1] here are the comments
> > (coming from me on behalf of the MyMobileWeb project) on the
> > vocabulary (some of them already known by Andrea, as I was
> chatting
> > with him on the MSN :) ):
> >
> > + Usable Screen Width / Height. If I read the description, this is
> > something that will depend on the whole DC and it will be likely
> > not suitable for storing in a DDR. The value of this property will
> > be calculated and not stored
> > + MIME Types. Do we really need a MIME type property for each
> > technology, or do we need to associate an additional "subproperty"
> > MIME_Type to each technology?
> > + ECMAScript: It is not enough with saying EcmaScript yes or no.
> > What DOM Level Support (if any) has this browser? That's it's
> > really important
> > + UTF-8 Are we going to restrict to UTF-8, only, or we are
> going to
> > consider other charsets?
> > + Table Support, how we are going to express that a device has
> > table support but there is a limitation in the total number of
> > columns that can be displayed?
> > + Italic and Bold. I'm not sure if this properties are going to be
> > in such status, shouldn't be it implied by the version of
> XHTML and
> > CSS supported?
> > + Caching I'm in doubt if this property may affect an application
> > regarding content adaptation
> > + I'm missing properties regarding the preferred markup formats,
> > image formats, I will ask for them
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > [1] http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/MyMobileWeb-
> > WURFL-W3C_Core_Vocabulary
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 07:51:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:51 GMT