Re: Review WAP 2.0 Arch.

Tom
If you read WAP Version 1 documentation and go beyond the basic
specifications to include something called the CCR (device Class
Conformance Requirements) you will find in that document which features are
mandatory or optional for various classes of devices. This mechanism
combined with a device and proxy/server certification program assures a hgh
degree of interoperability  across the various browsers available.
One might expect a similar approach to be adopted for WAP version 2 where
the "baggage" of WAP version 1, to paraphrase your comment, is managed.
Clearly backwards compatibility of content and applications is key to any
form of technology evolution but other aspects of any technology can be
considered for appropriateness at any stage. The Architecture Specification
aludes well the the approach expected and I would expect the CCR to clearly
indicate which protocol or content functions are available for any device
class.  As some of the other specifications become publicly available for
review I am sure all of this will become clear.
Regards

Alastair J Angwin,
Mail To :  IBM UK Laboratories,  Hursley Park, Winchester, Hampshire, SO21
2JN, UK
Tel: +44-(0)1962-816817 ... Fax: +44-(0)1962-819777 ...Mobile:
+44-(0)7703-128131
Email: Lotus Notes :  Alastair Angwin/UK/IBM  or ANGWIN@IBMGB
             Internet :           alastair_angwin@uk.ibm.com
                                        angwin@uk.ibm.com
             External IEA : GBIBMX59@IBMMAIL
---------------------- Forwarded by Alastair Angwin/UK/IBM on 23/04/2001
11:35 ---------------------------

Tom Worthington <tom.worthington@tomw.net.au> on 22/04/2001 03:45:52

Please respond to Tom Worthington <tom.worthington@tomw.net.au>

To:   www-mobile <www-mobile@w3c.org>
cc:
Subject:  Re: Review WAP 2.0 Arch.




At 09:45  11/04/01 +0900, Johan Hjelm wrote:
>I can tell you have not read the WAP 2 spec, which: * Uses HTTP * Uses
>XHTML * Uses CC/PP
>* Uses CSS   Backward compatibility with legacy WAP 1 technology *IS* by
>the use of gateways and special servers. Do read it, it is interesting.
>
>Tom Worthington wrote:
>
>>... abandon WAP 2 and create WAP 3 as a set of profiles of web and
>>Internet standards for mobile devices ... avoid features which would be
>>difficult to implement on mobile devices, but not introduce any new
>>technology. As an example WML would be abandoned and XHTML used,
>>exploiting accessibility features to work on mobile devices ...

My apologies. As you suggest, I made my comments without having read the
WAP 2 specification. Having read it I agree WAP 2 adds more general
Internet standards, but there is WAP 1 baggage left behind.

The draft specification
<http://www1.wapforum.org/tech/documents/WAP-210-WAPArch-20001017-p.pdf>
refers to common Internet standards, such as UDP, HTTP and XHTML, but
alongside WAP specific standards such as WDP, WTP and WML. In other cases
profiles of common standards are referred to, such as WP-TCP.

It is not clear from my reading if a WAP profile could be defined which
left out the WAP specific technology and only included that from generally
supported Internet standards.

One interesting possibility is that I-mode content might be WAP compatible,
since I-mode uses the cHTML subset of HTML
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-compactHTML-19980209/> and WAP 2 allows for
XHTML.

I intend to look at the implications of this for an Australian National
University course, in the next few weeks
<http://www.tomw.net.au/2001/wd.html>. Any thoughts would be welcome.


Tom Worthington FACS tom.worthington@tomw.net.au Ph: 0419 496150
Director, Tomw Communications Pty Ltd ABN: 17 088 714 309
http://www.tomw.net.au PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617
Visiting Fellow, Computer Science, Australian National University
Publications Director & Past President, Australian Computer Society
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business e-Commerce, 21 May: http://www.tomw.net.au/2001/esb

Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 07:15:25 UTC