RE: URLs and access issues

It is my impression that ".mobi" will signify "part of the Web that is also guaranteed to give a good experience on mobile devices because of the adherence to specified best practices".
 
This still does not help us address the selection of a particular form of representation. It just helps us be sure that whatever representation we get it will be good on a mobile device. As was pointed out in a related thread, the user should be able to indicate if they want the full information, or a summary, or some other form. That is separate from the desire to get a representation that actually works on mobile devices.
 
Sites that are not part of the .mobi domain may also be guaranteeing good quality mobile representations, and may even adhere to the same best practices mandated by .mobi, but they won't be advertising this fact via the domain name.
 
So I still think it is relevant for us to debate this issue (of how to indicate to a server how we would like our content served), and if we make some wonderful discovery then it can be considered by BPWG and/or .mobi.
 
---Rotan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Holley Kevin (Centre) [mailto:Kevin.Holley@o2.com]
Sent: 09 August 2005 10:14
To: Rotan Hanrahan; public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: URLs and access issues


Dear All,
 
Before we go too far with this please remember that some people have already set up the .mobi domain for this purpose.  Whether this works for PDAs and all phones as well as regular browsers remains to be seen.
 
Regards,
 
Kevin
 
-- 
Kevin Holley 
O2 Group Technology
Tel: +44 1473 782214 _ Fax: +44 7711 752031 _ Mobile: +44 7802 220811
IM: kevinaholley (AIM/MSN/Y!/Skype)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
Sent: 09 August 2005 09:48
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: URLs and access issues


Even the chances of getting a new data format recognised are hard. A new protocol would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.Of course, there's nothing wrong with using HTTP. It is, after all, what is used to retrieve CSS files, robots.txt files, and other files that are effectively metadata. All you need to do is define a metadata file/format for site descriptions and you have a workable solution without having to invent a new protocol. And the URLs can still be small.
 
Site descriptions are issues for the Semantic Web people. Perhaps they could comment?
 
---Rotan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Combelles [mailto:nicolas.combelles@apocope.com]
Sent: 09 August 2005 09:40
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices


> what are the chances for creating a new 'mobile protocol' so instead of having the 'http://' suffix we can use 'mob://'  ?
 
I would say ... none .. :oD. Simply because a protocol as a meaning and is used by browser to use the correct protocol. That's not something you can or should customize.
 
The mobile version of the http protocole used on is wstp (or something like that) and is translated by telcos gateways to http for wap1 handset that doesn't handle http directly.
So anyway, users always use http URLs.
 
People having better knowledge of protocols might give you a better answer, but I think you got my point.
 
 
It is funny how this topic "Best Practices document - not best practices" is hard to kill. I created a new one specially for URL and access issue .. remember ?
 
 
Cheers,
Nicolas Combelles
Apocope
 

  _____  

De : public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] De la part de marcus saw
Envoyé : mardi 9 août 2005 04:51
À : Rotan Hanrahan; public-bpwg@w3.org
Objet : RE: Best Practices document - not best practices


Off the cuff idea but what are the chances for creating a new 'mobile protocol' so instead of having the 'http://' suffix we can use 'mob://'  ?
 
Or would this be too hard to implement as it could potentially mean a lot of exisitng browsers would not understand the new suffix?
 
I am personally against anything that increases the length of the URL you have to type into a phone ( eg: sub directories http://something.com/mobile ) because phone keyboards are a pain to use due to their size and they will probably remain tiny for the foreseable future.
 
Getting back on track - if it is possible to provide a new protocol for mobile content then it would be equally feasible to provide a new protocol to define the 'summary' content or 'full' content as discussed previously.
 
Marcus Saw.
http://cellsuite.blogspot.com

 [...] 

===================================================== 

This electronic message contains information from O2 which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately. 

=====================================================