- From: Tim Moss <Tim@bango.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:15:27 +0100
- To: "Rotan Hanrahan" <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-mobile@w3.org>, "Steve Parker" <sparker@well.com>
- Message-ID: <2BC2AEC80DD48B40AAAB98A4BE71B5C9667BC3@erol.Westbrooke.bango.net>
I believe that a repository where over time device information is marked as 'trusted' or 'verified' in some way will be very helpful. Bango looked briefly at WURFL quite some time ago and found that it wasn't going to help us much at the time. This is not a criticism of WURFL, it just didn't meet our needs. In particular we found that for specific devices the information would not necessarily be complete, clearly this is likely to improve over time as the information for a device is added to but it is far from convenient to programmatically check that all capabilities are present in an entry before considering using it or falling back to defaults. A flag or field stating whether or not the entry was complete, and/or trusted/verified would be much simpler. Another issue comes from the understanding of the semantics of the individual devices capabilities which clearly varies from tester to tester. A device's screen resolution is frequently not the same as its 'usable display resolution' as the browser on the device takes up display space with menus, header areas, margins around the page etc. We currently use the mobile controls from the Microsoft .NET Framework, and whilst Microsoft themselves supply device capability information, this is updated infrequently and therefore tends to cover devices that are considerably behind the market trends. Bango therefore have to amend and add to the information supplied by Microsoft, but they don't have any method for allowing us to contribute this information to the community by including it in future updates of their configuration files. One thing they do supply is a quite nice device capability testing suite; a set of interactive tests that the tester runs through on the device in question with the final result being an output of the device capability information in the correct format to add to the MS configuration files. Could something similar be employed to help automat the process of 'verifying' device information and ensuring that it is complete? However even with such an approach you need to trust that the person carrying out the testing answers the interactive tests correctly. It would be easy for someone for example to pay attention to the areas they are specifically interested in and quickly skip through the rest of the tests... Tim Moss CTO Bango ________________________________ From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan Sent: 21 July 2005 09:20 To: public-ddwg@w3.org Cc: www-mobile@w3.org; Steve Parker Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list? Several companies create and maintain their own validated device information repositories, which are supersets of the information available in public. However, it takes great effort to create these repositories and they are generally created in support of specialised products. As a consequence, these repositories are out of reach because they are expensive. I am pleased to report that certain key suppliers of such repositories/products are participating in W3C MWI, with the hope that their experience may be applied to the situation that you suggest is the case today. An extensible, accurate, verified, trusted baseline repository of device descriptions is one of the items on the table, which requires the participants to examine carefully how such a repository might operate. Much of the work will be conducted with input from the wider community, so I welcome and encourage the feedback expressed on the public lists. ---Rotan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Parker [mailto:sparker@well.com] Sent: 21 July 2005 00:30 To: Rotan Hanrahan; Holley Kevin (Centre); www-mobile@w3.org Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list? Formally, these are certainly the right standards/groups, but the track record is disappointing in practise. In my experience, the UAProf info actually supplied is not necessarily accurate or complete. The URLs are not always present or correct. There is no mechanism or procedure for correcting it - its entirely at the manufacturers' whim. Even when the data are ok, there's a lot of useful parameters missing from the standard. There's supposed to be a Java API, but I had to report a bug in the JSR reference implementation months after it was approved. It's very frustrating to anyone actually trying to cater for all the different devices right now. Standards are one thing, but to get something working, now, WURFL is the only show in town. I'm not an open source zealot, but WURFL has gone further faster than the standards bodies. It works as advertised, it's responsive, it's simple to use, it's user extensible. Steve -----Original Message----- From: www-mobile-request@w3.org [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:07 PM To: Holley Kevin (Centre); www-mobile@w3.org Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list? The UAProf information, where provided and validated, can provide some essential and objective information about mobile devices. It has been recognised, however, that in many domains of content authoring and adaptation that such information is insufficient. The DDWG will be exploring the bigger picture, and looking at ways that a general device description repository could be achieved, such that it can encompass UAProf and other sources of information, avoiding replication of services, and providing the necessary features of discovery, trust, efficiency and related information management issues. The DDWG is specifically directed to liaise with UAProf and other related groups to this end. Planned W3C Notes will explain in further detail, and these shall get a public airing during this year. Input from interested parties via the public mailing list will be encouraged. The group will also solicit specific information from key parties where appropriate. I hope this adds some clarity. ---Rotan. [ ... see mailing list archive for previous messages .... ]
Received on Friday, 22 July 2005 10:57:44 UTC