W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2009

Re: "draft-wilde-sms-uri-19" available

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:33:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4A92CF03.5000005@berkeley.edu>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, uri@w3.org
hello dan.

Dan Brickley wrote:
> Looking at the abstract and examples, the scope isn't very clear to me.
> http://dret.net/netdret/docs/draft-wilde-sms-uri-19.html#uri-examples
>  "for specifying one or more recipients for an SMS messages"
> - grammar seems funny; "recipients for an SMS message" or "recipients
> for SMS messages"

i don't see where you copied that text, it seems to me there are two 
locations saying "one or more recipients for an SMS message", but i 
could not find the text you pasted here. maybe you looked at an older 
version?

> It might help if you list the classes of thing that this scheme
> provides identifiers for? ie. an sms: URI could be an identifier for
>  - a single sms-capable account
>  - a list of sms-capable accounts
>  - one or more accounts plus a draft message

the difficulty may be that the intent of the scheme is to allow the 
sending of one message logically speaking, but since SMS does not have 
the capabilities to send one message to more than one recipient, on the 
SMS level this maps to a number of messages being sent, one to each 
individual recipient. since there are individual messages, they could be 
different, but the intent is that if multiple messages are being sent, 
they all have the same content. this is stated in section 2.3:

'5. If the URI consists of a comma-separated list of recipients (i.e., 
contains multiple <sms-recipient> parts), all of them are processed in 
this manner. Exactly the same message SHOULD be sent to all of the 
listed recipients, which means that the message resulting from the 
message composition step for the first recipient is used unaltered for 
all other recipients as well.'

it seems to me that this is sufficiently clear, and the syntax as well 
as the examples make it clear (it seems to me) that there can be more 
than one recipient, and that an (optional) body can be supplied as the 
initial message contents. do you think the whole draft is sort of 
unclear at that, or just the abstract? the body part is not mentioned in 
the abstract because it is optional, and because more often that not, it 
will not be used.

cheers,

erik wilde   tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
        dret@berkeley.edu  -  http://dret.net/netdret
        UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 17:34:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:42 GMT