RE: is CC/PP worth using

The WAP proposal does not use numerical namespaces so solves the first
problem (question: is the x-wap- prefix considered a namespace?)

But it does not mandate the use of XML documents that do not contain
carriage returns. Therefore there is still a danger that someone will
implement x-wap-profile-diff in a way that is incompatible with the current
javax.serlet.http API and hence many current application servers.

Another question: there is a small but significant difference between the
WAP and CC/PP proposals. In the WAP proposal, "x-wap-profile-diff" is
separated from profile-diff-seq by a colon (:) but in the CC/PP proposal
"profile-diff" is separated from profile-diff-number via a hyphen (-). Is
there any rationale behind this?

This does make a significant difference for servers because everything up to
a colon is regarded as a header whereas everything after the header is
regarded as a value. The WAP version is better IMHO.

Finally re: rechartering. Is there going to be more coordination between the
CC/PP working group and the device independent working group. The DI-WG have
identified the importance of a mechanism for expressing "delivery context"
i.e. CC/PP. However as CC/PP is still in a developmental stage, currently
there is some argument about whether it should be used. What can be done
about this?

Johan said one reason for the delays with CC/PP is the industry downturn.
However despite this there has been a lot of interest in the DI-WG
(presumably as it is problem-focused rather than technology-focused like the
CC/PP-WG). Perhaps there needs to be some marketing to explain why CC/PP (or
some future version of it) is an important technology for device
independence?

Mark Butler
HP Labs Bristol

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Hjelm [mailto:johan.hjelm@era-t.ericsson.se]
Sent: 16 August 2001 08:47
To: sandeep.gain@riverrun.com
Cc: www-mobile@w3.org
Subject: Re: is CC/PP worth using


Actually, I was just made aware that the WAP UAPROF spec, chapter 9,
contains
just such a protocol. You will have to look it up, it looks really weird
when I
try to copy and paste from Word. But it looks like it takes care of Marks
comments.

As for the future of CC/PP, I am of course biased. Yes, we will rule the
world
and eat the cake, too. However, all legacy servers will never implement all
new
technologies. That will never happen. So you can not expect total
penetration.

As an aside, I am increasingly convinced about the value of the approach
using a
default with overrides. Of course, you need a structure like CC/PP to keep
stuff
in. But I participate in discussions in lots of other places, and the
approach
keeps getting validated.

Concerning the vocabulary, the answer is "maybe". The attributes are there,
and
things like screensize and colour are not specific to WAP. However, you
would
have to look at it yourself to say whether it covered all your needs. I was
just
in a teleconference with another group in our company, who is adding a set
of
attributes in a namespace of their own in a standard they are producing (you
may
find out when it is finished). So that is a viable option, but I agree with
Lalitha that you need the support of an organization for it to be accepted.

Hope that answers the question
Johan

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 06:03:16 UTC