- From: Arun Kumar <kkarun@in.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:54:42 +0530
- To: Jeff Sonstein <jeffs@it.rit.edu>
- Cc: Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>, public-mw4d@w3.org
Apologies for a delayed reply.
> .....like to
> > clarify that it is the latter reason rather than technical
> feasibility
> > being an issue here.
>>one can usefully think of SMS as
>>just one of the possible request/response channels
>>for services sitting on the Web
>>remember that the Web is based on request/response cycles
>>and SMS is just one way to initiate a request (or point to a request-
>>store)
>>and/or to receive a response (or pointer to a final response-point)
<AK> Very true. Completely agree here that SMS can be thought of as just
one of the possible request/response channels for services on the Web. It
is because of exactly the same reason that I mentioned it as a technically
feasible mechanism for browsing the web. However, the difference crops up
when we compare its capability to the request-response cycles in the web
using HTTP. HTTP works over a connection oriented protocol such as TCP
which can provide some guarantees/status about the 'end-to-end' connection
between client and server. Because of this it becomes possible to offer a
seamless browsing experience since TCP keeps track of and recovers from
minor errors among various hops in the connection path. Whereas, if we were
to use SMS, we get a store-and-forward transport mechanism which is
connection-less. We would be able to ensure some guarantee / provide status
among two points of a hop but not end-to-end path. This makes browsing
difficult since the underlying channel becomes unreliable and not capable
of recovering from faults such as packet losses. It is because of that
reason, I feel SMS is not a forwarding looking technology for web
browsing/web access, though it has its own benefits that are important for
developing countries.</AK>
Hope this explains my view better.
thanks and regards
Arun Kumar
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/arun
World Wide Telecom Web (aka Spoken Web):
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_people.nsf/pages/arun_kumar.WWTW.html
Jeff Sonstein
<jeffs@it.rit.edu
> To
public-mw4d@w3.org
11/06/2008 07:57 cc
PM Arun Kumar/India/IBM@IBMIN, Kai
Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>
Subject
Re:
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/MS4D_WS/p
apers/unicef-w3c-presentation.html
On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:15 AM, public-mw4d@w3.org wrote:
> > There are essentially two aspects that are getting mixed up here.
> One is
> > the technical feasibility of using SMS, voice etc., while the
> other is
> > usabiity and practicality of the solution. So, I agree with
> Stephane that
> > SMS for browsing the web is probably not the way forward but would
> like to
> > clarify that it is the latter reason rather than technical
> feasibility
> > being an issue here.
one can usefully think of SMS as
just one of the possible request/response channels
for services sitting on the Web
remember that the Web is based on request/response cycles
and SMS is just one way to initiate a request (or point to a request-
store)
and/or to receive a response (or pointer to a final response-point)
> > Completely agree here though if the 'transient phase' is more than
> few
> > years then it might still be worthwhile to invest if the returns
> can be
> > justified.
> agreed. but i believe this is not the case for SMS.
can you say why you hold this belief?
perhaps I am missing something here
but I'd say the emergence of SMS-only plans
in places like the PRC
are indicators of SMS's longer-term utility
for "average people" in the developing world
jeffs
--
The people who tap into
the rhythm of how this
audience uses media,
those are the ones who
are going to win. Our
audience is full of multitaskers.
They're IM-ing and talking on
the phone and doing their
homework and watching TV
all at the same time.
- Van Toffler, MTV Pres. -
============
Prof. Jeff Sonstein
http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/
http://chw.rit.edu/blog/
http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/emailDisclaimer.html
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 18:26:44 UTC