W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-mobile@w3.org > May 2002

RE: Proposal: Values for UAProf properties

From: <Stan@rga.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:12:56 -0400
Message-ID: <A9EFA28BE083D311ACEF0008C74FF53303E8AF8C@norman.ny.rga.com>
To: koch@pixelpark.com, www-mobile@w3.org


1.) we had a discussion last week about what UAprof is not specifying. I
pasted it below:

>> Just from looking at UAprof I can tell cases where it 
>> doesn't completely cover the device. Most of browseres have 
>> anomalies not described in the profiles, i.e. a) WML lets you 
>> specify a title of deck, but certain browser (all UP <5) just 
>> don't display them and b.) WML lets you create numbered lists 
>> but certain browsers don't display them or only the first line. 
>> I'm sure that you will discover the same thing when you start 
>> using i-mode devices and handhelds.  I'm very much aware that 
>> these are details, my point and question is: Is or will there be a 
>> testing environment where these standards will be tested in a 
>> real world environment? ...

2.) Will UAprof clearly separate between a browser specification and a
device specification? I'm only saying that since for example in the US most
phones use the same browser and the CC/PP's I saw were repeating that
information rather then pointing to the browser spec. That is only a detail

Stan Wiechers

-----Original Message-----
From: Johannes Koch
To: www-mobile@w3.org
Sent: 5/29/02 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal: Values for UAProf properties

Vidhya Gholkar schrieb:
> Hi Johannes,
> If you want to make a proposal for updating the UAProf specification
> you are a member of the WAP forum, I strongly recommend that you make
> Change Recommendation to the WAP forum's uaprof list
> 'wap-uaprof@mail.wapforum.org', attend a Wireless Application Group
> meeting and get it pushed through.

I don't want to get something 'pushed through'. I want some discussion
about it.

> Vidhya
> p.s. small comment, if the browser support XHTML Mobile mobile
> it supports all of its modules. There is a different W3C mechanism for
> recognising which XHTML modules are supported and which aren't - this
> the document profile. As a personal opinion, UAProf is unlikely to
> duplicate that; it is more likely to be streamlined in support of
> like document profiles.

Yes, if the profile is mentioned in XhtmlVersion, it's much easier.
Johannes Koch  . IT Developer
Pixelpark AG   . http://www.pixelpark.com
Rotherstraße 8 . 10245 Berlin  .  Germany
phone: +49 30 5058 - 1288  .  fax: - 1355
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 09:14:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:03 UTC