- From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 13:46:21 -0700
- To: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Jo, The basic question here is not one of platform or what is supported by one platform or another re binding to a particular push bearer (SMS being just one). There are widely supported standards for application binding to SMS as event triggers, and vendor-specific API's supporting tbe binding of applications (which can include web applications) to SMS send/receive. Like most things in mobiles, diversity is a key factor here, and support does vary. But we are not avoiding other mobility-specific aspects because support varies or the API/methods or supporting platforms that vendors offer vary. We should be equitable in how we consider things as best practices, and not focus on the platforms, but the methods/practices themselves. Developers will always need to educate themselves re the particular platform's support for best practices we recommend. The basic question is whether W3C wants to view the "Mobile Web" with glasses polarized to filter out anything that is not widely deployed on desktop browsers, as the definition of "web" to be inherited as the "Mobile Web". If it does so, it will ignore the unique characteristics of the mobile environment that make services so different/compelling (and the needs for service enablers also different). Push methodology (whether via OMA Push or SMS binding) is one of those unique characteristics. Note also that Push will not be unique to mobile for long: work is nearing completion on extending OMA Push to SIP environments (I chair the OMA working group leading this effort), thus the wired web will also benefit from a standardized Push technology in the near future. In the meantime it remains one of the key differentiators of the mobile web environment, that should have a prominent place in BP2. Whether it is possible to bind to SMS from Javascript is just one facet/approach of implementation, that will likely itself vary from device to device. Side note: re the comment "CMN: Push isn't in "Web" browsers - full internet as opposed to WAP browsers" - Push is supported by many "full internet" or "full web" browsers that are deployed on mobile devices; many services depend upon this and it would not make sense for vendors to ignore the Push Client integration work. Best regards, Bryan Sullivan | AT&T -----Original Message----- From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:57 AM To: public-bpwg@w3.org Subject: ISSUE-253 (Incoming SMS): Binding to Incoming SMS from Script [Mobile Web Applications Best Practices] ISSUE-253 (Incoming SMS): Binding to Incoming SMS from Script [Mobile Web Applications Best Practices] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/ Raised by: Jo Rabin On product: Mobile Web Applications Best Practices My ACTION-690 has me raising this issue. The question arose as follows: 5.5.3 - Push BS: Push is widely deployed in networks. As a way to do event-based delivery instead of polling you could use it to minimise network traffic CMN: It's in WAP browsers BS: Almost every phone browser is a WAP browser, and they implemented push CMN: Push isn't in "Web" browsers - full internet as opposed to WAP browsers JR: There are two cases here... on the one hand WAP push and on the other hand application binding to incoming SMS to generate event based behavior BS: There is a problem of education. There is no generic way to bind SMS to an application, and that would be a proprietary implementation detail. JR: ..."if the device supports it". BS: The only standard method I know of is MIDP registry. JR: To my mind there is a distinction between WAP push and bindings on information pushed to an application. Maybe more information is needed... BS: We haven't said that MIDP-based browsers are not in scope... CMN: No. But I think it is clear that MIDP-based stuff is not readily within the scope of Web stuff - it is a particualr platform, in the same way that ActiveX relies ona aprticular platform, rather than being a general Web technology. JR: Think we need some more research to look at this... would someone like to take an Action? [pregnant silence] <jo> ACTION: JR to raise Issue as to availability of binding to incoming SMS from script [recorded in [70]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03] <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-690 - Raise Issue as to availability of binding to incoming SMS from script [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11].
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 20:47:16 UTC