W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > March 2010

RE: ACTION-16 for SystemInfo API

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 03:30:03 -0800
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD10E09E82@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "Max Froumentin" <maxfro@opera.com>, "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <public-uwa@w3.org>
I suggest this be a topic in the UWA, as it's really a vocabulary issue only. It should make no difference to the SysInfo API as that is only a means to determine values for supported device properties.

Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Froumentin [mailto:maxfro@opera.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:01 AM
To: Rotan Hanrahan
Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW); public-device-apis@w3.org; public-uwa@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-16 for SystemInfo API

On 23/02/2010 14:43, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
>>> roaming should have three values: national, and international. If
>>> not roaming, the value should be null. This should also be added
>>> to the DCO (dcn:roaming).
>> national roaming: is that in some countries you could be roaming in
>> the same country? Then is it important to differentiate between
>> national and international roaming?
> Actually, there are other classifications of roaming (including
> regional and trans-standards, (iirc)) and there are cases where the
> roaming is defined in terms of (political) geography, and other cases
> where the boundaries are defined by the network itself. For this
> reason, I don't think any of the proposals are suitable, and a bit
> more research is required.

Sounds like the feature belongs to the "too complicated for this version 
of sysInfo", as defined in ACTION-80. If people agree, I'd rather stick 
to a boolean type.

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 11:30:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:18 UTC