W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [widgets] CCPP in widgets, was Re: Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call WD

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 00:14:38 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670809041614p7394baabkfbbe6c0629fe0a53@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sullivan, Bryan" <BS3131@att.com>
Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>

Hi Bryan,

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
> Responding a little late (vacations etc),
>
> The CCPP use I've proposed is fairly simple, ala the delivery of a link to a capabilities document that is hosted on a web server, and semantically useful. This is what mobile devices have done for years via the OMA UAProf (using the "x-wap-profile" header over-the-air, which is sometimes mapped to the "profile" header in WAP gateways), and while not universal and not without limitations (some of which we are addressing via OMA DPE, W3C MWI/DDWG, and W3C UWA), it represents the only semantically useful way to disclose detailed application characteristics (at least widely deployed and used).
>

The problem, as the working group sees it, is the reliance on RDF
(when considering CCPPexchange, which, at the last F2F the group took
objection to because that spec is a Note and hence non-normative): RDF
puts an unnecessarily heavy burden on anyone on the receiving end of
the technology, particularly for something that, as you state, is
supposed to be simple.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 23:15:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT