W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-di@w3.org > October 2006

RE: few queries on Device independence to start research further

From: Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:46:31 +0100
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D3962A12@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: "P. Hemagiri" <P.Hemagiri@techbooks.com>, <www-di@w3.org>

Some input to this discussion...

Implementations of W3C Recommendations normally start during the
Candidate Recommendation phase, and sometimes before. Interoperable
implementations are necessary to prove the viablity of a technology
prior to it being formally Recommended. Therefore I suggest you also
include CR phase specifications in your analysis. Note that some
proposals remain in CR for a considerable length of time, not because of
the lack of implementations but because of not conducting formal interop
tests.

The specifications in a Rec often result from direct input from, or
consultation with, interested parties such as telecoms operators,
manufacturers, service providers etc. These parties do not necessarily
wait for W3C, but will actively prepare their R&D activities to
prototype the proposals. Also, many of the technologies represented by
W3C Recs are the result of contribution from participants in Working
Groups derived from their own research/products. This often results from
the participants coming to an agreement that their individual solutions
would have a greater impact if contributed to the community (e.g.
standardisation on an API resolves overheads in a market segment, thus
growing that segment and making business propositions viable for all
participants). Most of the Working Groups (including DIWG) comprise
market competitors who willingly cooperate, contribute and agree on this
basis.

Many companies adopt W3C Recommendations, and many companies adapt W3C
Recommendations. Naturally the idea is that the Recs would be adopted
rather than adapted. However, the realities of the world teach us that
in certain niche areas, specialisation requires that little changes
(adaptations) are made to implementations in order to make them more
suitable. Some companies like to describes these as "enhancements". The
W3C responds to this inevitable evolution by making it possible for such
enhancements to be brought back and made part of a revised
Recommendation. This is one of the reasons why W3C technologies continue
to evolve. The history of CC/PP and UAProf comes to mind, as does the
history of XHTML, XHTML-Basic and XHTML-MP.

No single technique dominates in the world of content adaptation. The
representatives in DIWG have many years in this business. Some of their
technologies are similar, and some are quite different. This is both
because of their business history and the market(s) they address. You
should choose your techniques based on your specific circumstances (the
nature of your content, the nature of your audience, the nature of your
network, the division of roles and responsibilities, the cost of your
resources etc.).

Naturally, we would suggest that you look at DISelect and DIAL. It is
inevitable that these will evolve and find uses that we have not yet
anticipated, but they are a good start at providing a DI framework. The
concepts underpinning these technologies have already been proven in
products from members of DIWG. DISelect and DIAL illustrate a particular
way in which these concepts can be realised, and we await feedback from
the community.

Finally, please note that the DIWG is not a consulting organisation, so
we regret that beyond pointing out what has been published by W3C and
what has been learned through the efforts of Working Groups, we will not
be able to provide formal consulting services.

Rotan Hanrahan (member of DIWG).

________________________________

From: www-di-request@w3.org [mailto:www-di-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
P. Hemagiri
Sent: 16 October 2006 08:26
To: www-di@w3.org
Cc: Sandeep Khomne; Sameer Tamboli; P. Hemagiri
Subject: few queries on Device independence to start research further
Importance: High



Hi All,

 

It's really great to see a helping hand from all you.  I have started
reading the documents and it's very interesting.

Actually our company was planning to set up a research team which will
develop device independent content for mobile learning. For successful
planning and execution I need few doubts to be clarified from you all. 

 

As of my understanding once a Working Draft Becomes recommendation, then
only all the major Telecom or Device manufacturing companies will start
adapting the standards set by w3 (please correct me if am wrong).

 

If the above said is the case, then the below is our plan

 

*         Identify the Recommendations set by W3c till now for device
independent content delivery.

 

*         Recommendations adapted by Device manufacturing companies to
be identified. To be in detail, we have to conclude which models have
adapted which recommendations.

 

*         If we find a minimum one model from every major manufacturer
supporting the above identified recommendations, we will proceed to
point 4. 

 

*         We will research and explore the technologies laid by the
recommendations and start developing content.

 

 

 

Can we actually develop a Device Independent Content Delivery with the
current technologies adapted by Device manufacturers? 

 

If we can, how much time and resources are required to successfully
develop device independent content for mobile learning? 

 

 

In our Initial findings, the below listed technologies are going to rule
the future of Device Independent content delivery,

 

*         WAP 2.0 - XHTML along with ECMAScript 

*         XHTML Mobile Profile (XHTML MP)

*         ECMAScript Mobile Profile (ESMP)

*         WAP Push

*         SMIL

*         CSS3: Media queries

*         Xforms

*         VoiceXML

*         Device Independent Authoring Language (DIAL)

 

Guys, the above said plan is a rough draft out of our understanding. Do
correct us or you all can always suggest a different plan altogether.

 

 

Thanks in advance,

Hemagiri.
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 08:46:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 October 2006 08:46:48 GMT