- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 00:14:38 +0100
- To: "Sullivan, Bryan" <BS3131@att.com>
- Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Bryan, On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote: > Hi Marcos, > Responding a little late (vacations etc), > > The CCPP use I've proposed is fairly simple, ala the delivery of a link to a capabilities document that is hosted on a web server, and semantically useful. This is what mobile devices have done for years via the OMA UAProf (using the "x-wap-profile" header over-the-air, which is sometimes mapped to the "profile" header in WAP gateways), and while not universal and not without limitations (some of which we are addressing via OMA DPE, W3C MWI/DDWG, and W3C UWA), it represents the only semantically useful way to disclose detailed application characteristics (at least widely deployed and used). > The problem, as the working group sees it, is the reliance on RDF (when considering CCPPexchange, which, at the last F2F the group took objection to because that spec is a Note and hence non-normative): RDF puts an unnecessarily heavy burden on anyone on the receiving end of the technology, particularly for something that, as you state, is supposed to be simple. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 23:15:25 UTC