RE: URLs and access issues

Oops ... hit the enter key :-/ . Sorry.
 
Sure there is no reason to find other place to customize URLs than existing
ones :
 
- alias (cname)
- subfolder name
- extension (.mobi)
 
-> The folder name add length and slashes.
-> The extension means another URL = price to pay, + setting up the domain.
And IMO ".mobi" sucks :o> (don't like four letters extension). Once I
thought of the ".ws" (for website) to be used for "wireless" :o).
-> The alias is the one I find best.
 
But again :
- Mobile is not a good word, just the more generic we could find
"acceptable".
- The unique URL remains often the best solution.
 
 
Same for the previous mails about :
- communicating on the server IP adress (IP can change .. domains normally
do not)
- using URL made with numbers (nice for - specific product like your content
portals, but not suited to a company).
 
Numbers may be easy to type, but not as easy to memorize as your company
name.
 
 
We can also cite the 2D barcodes (QRcode) used in Japan. They contain the
encrypted mobile site URL, and are used on print ads. Users with photophones
can  take a picture of the QRcode with the phone camera and a software
recognize and launch the browser. 
(If you're interested by this topic, you can find much more details on this
on the keitai-l mailing list.)
 
This is a good facilitator. Like pushing URL by mail/sms/wap push as i
mentionned before. But "facilitating" isn't replacing. 
 
A good old URL is still the first step.
 
 
Cheers,
 

Nicolas Combelles
R&D & Mobile marketing projects Manager
________________________________

apocope ~ web & wireless business

 

  _____  

De : Nicolas Combelles [mailto:nicolas.combelles@apocope.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 9 août 2005 11:26
À : 'public-bpwg@w3.org'
Objet : RE: URLs and access issues


Sure, 
 
 
 

Nicolas Combelles
R&D & Mobile marketing projects Manager
________________________________
apocope ~ web & wireless business

 

  _____  

De : public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] De la
part de Holley Kevin (Centre)
Envoyé : mardi 9 août 2005 11:14
À : Rotan Hanrahan; public-bpwg@w3.org
Objet : 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. 

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