RE: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0

Hello again.

The "diversity" to which I was referring to was the diversity of
capabilities, which are a combination of the platform (device)
capabilities and of the software (client) running on that platform. Both
must be considered. To understand what is meant by "vapability",
consider screen size: the physical size is a property of the device, but
the viewable size is normally less than the full physical screen, and
attempts to display larger images lead to scroll bars (or other similar
behaviour depending on the client, styling etc.). Variations in
phsical/behavioural characteristics of mobile Web-enabled devices exceed
those of the fixed devices. This is based on knowledge from existing
device repositories that are used to assist in the adaptation of content
for fixed and mobile end-users.

Regarding "appropriate representation", where possible the author should
be the source of information that determines what is appropriate or not.
As an extremely simple example, the existing <img> tag provides the
author with an alt="..." attribute so that the author can indicate the
text that is appropriate to use when images are not appropriate. Many
debates within the W3C have concluded that authors should be provided
with the means to express such metadata in anticipation of the variable
context in which the content may ultimately be consumed. Of course, not
every possible use can be anticipated (the <img> tag does not come with
a tactile alternative, nor any means for the author to indicate if there
would be an information loss if the image were omitted). In such cases,
when the intentions of the author are not known exactly, one may use
alternative strategies: heuristics, decisions of a secondary author,
suggestions from the client etc., for example, a very small image used
as a bullet in a list probably carries no information, especially if the
same image is used for every item in the list. (Feel free to mention the
counter examples...)

I have not indicated a mechanism for measuring quality, though I do
intend that any such measurement would be determined (or at least
influenced) by the author, in the sense understood by the Device
Independence Working Group under the heading of "Harmonized User
Experience" [1].

---Rotan

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/#def-harmonized-user-experience

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Sotiropoulos [mailto:sam@sotiropoulos.com] 
Sent: 06 May 2006 06:15
To: Rotan Hanrahan
Cc: sam@sotiropoulos.com; public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0

Rotan.Hanrahan wrote:

> It is a well established fact that the W3C Director is against 
> breaking the Web (not the "net").

Thanks for pointing that out, I knew it was something like that... I
certainly hope I didn't mislead or confuse anyone on that count. :-)

>
> Depending on how you choose to measure client capabilities, every 
> Web-enabled device belongs to some sub-category. Mobile Web-enabled 
> devices will soon outnumber fixed (traditional) Web-enabled devices. 
> The diversity that is seen in its extreme within the mobile world is 
> also seen to some degree in the non-mobile world. The need to address 
> diversity is therefore applicable to the entire Web.

That is like saying everything and nothing.  Please define the
'diversity'
you are referring to.  Are you talking about browser rendering engines,
screen size/resolution, what do you mean exactly?  I have a hard time
with generalities when it comes to technical questions so please humour
me, I am afraid I'm a little slow in that regard.

>
> The work of the DDWG supports the idea of maintaining a single Web. We

> wish to enable authors "code" to standards, and enable the 
> infrastructure use agent detection (a part of context-awareness) to 
> guide any adaptation/selection processes necessary to deliver 
> appropriate representations of the authored resources.

So each vendor defines what an "appropriate representation of the
authored resources" is? Is that what you mean?

>
> Current agent-detection technologies are insufficient because in many 
> cases the determination of the agent is not supported by sufficient 
> understanding of what the agent requires. The proposed DDR fills this 
> gap.

Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds suspiciously like another way
of pitching proprietary rendering engines which originally led to (IMHO)
the foundation of the W3C and related bodies to provide some
standardization without which we'd really be in a broken web.

>
> The DDR will have its most immediate impact on the quality of content 
> presentation on the diversity of mobile devices, but it will also have

> an impact on all other types of Web-enabled device.

What exactly do you mean when you say "quality of content presentation"?

Quality according to what standards?

Now, I don't know you and I don't mean any offense as I'm simply
curious, but are you perhaps in the employ of a device vendor?

Be Well,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


>
> Regards,
> ---Rotan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Sam Sotiropoulos
> Sent: 04 May 2006 22:52
> 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 Sunday, 7 May 2006 20:03:48 UTC