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
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 23:15:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 13:55:21 UTC