RE: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0

I know this message is directed to Mr.Lee, but since it was posted in public
I assume it's acceptable that I jump in.

>  Can we not code according to standards and
> expect that the existing infrastructure and agent detection tools be a
> sufficient model of approach?

Short answer: no, you cannot.

Long answer: it's about how many people will access your mobile
content/service. Carriers and content providers know very well that poor
usability invariably leads to low adoption. Try accessing the portal of any
major GSM operator and you will see that they serve different pages to
different classes of devices (typically: WML, simple XHTML, graphically rich
XHTML). There is a very sound reason for this: usability -> business.
Now, I guess that the question is whether W3C intends to have a role in
driving standards that make adaptation possible or whether the world will
resort to adaptation without W3C support :)

Luca


* Device fragmentation is hard to deal with for GSM operators particularly.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sam Sotiropoulos
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:52 PM
To: Tim Berners-Lee
Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org; tag
Subject: Re: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0


Mr. Lee,

Just a few questions: I understood that you were against 'breaking the
net' so I am curious to see your comments on this spec. Is this extra
layer of complexity designed to cater to a sub-category of internet
enabled devices really needed?  Can we not code according to standards and
expect that the existing infrastructure and agent detection tools be a
sufficient model of approach?

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
> I have suggested that the TAG and DAWG look at this spec.
>
> Glancing through
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/
> the following things occur to me.
>
> A requirement:
>
> a) 2.11.  Use-case 1. Utilization of device description information
> from the DDR
>
>   The requirements don't say anything about cacheing.
>
>     If really every single request for content from a phone goes
> through the flow show, the server will be under intolerable load and
> a complete bottleneck.  It is clearly necessary for the content
> provider, or an intermediate node, to keep a cache of previous
> requests. This requires the cache control facilities
>
> and two informal thoughts:
>
> b) An unwritten requirement is that new technology is not invented
> where existing technology exists.
>
> (For example, HTTP caching provides the facilities necessary (proxy
> architecture, cache read-through, expiry time, etc) and do providing
> the DDR lookup over HTTP clearly allows the client architecture.
> SPARQL may provide a suitable protocol)
>
> c) "The Device Vendor develops, manages (e.g. updates existing device
> profiles when devices are upgraded)". That's interesting.  I
> understood that in the past, device vendrors have nor always been
> forthcoming with such information.  Will the DDR only use vendor
> data, or possibly third party data?  Clearly vendor data makes more
> sense, so long as it is provided.  Presumably the DDR architecture is
> not affected by this choice.
>
> Tim
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 09:01:36 UTC