Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wmlprogramming] WURFL questions

Expand Messages
  • luca passani
    Zev, great to know that people are silently adopting the WURFL!!! Personally, I think that since the purpose of this capability is to be human readable, it
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Zev, great to know that people are silently adopting the WURFL!!!

      Personally, I think that since the purpose of this capability is to be
      human readable,
      it makes sense to have a single string

      <capability name="common_model_name" value="Nokia 7110 AKA the big green
      banana full of bugs" />

      if you start using two fields, then you are back to parsing and you
      loose a bit of the point
      with the spirit of having a humar readable description

      luca

      Zev Blut wrote:

      >Greetings,
      >
      >My comments about adding vendor/brand and model names to the WURFL are below.
      >
      >On Friday 04 April 2003 23:32, laszlo_nadai wrote:
      >
      >
      >>Here is a mail I received off-list:
      >>
      >>Hi Laszlo,
      >>here is Simone, i'm studying WURLF since I'm doing a site that uses
      >>WAP/SMS/MMS and similar stuff, and having a good source of infos on
      >>cellphones would be a great thing.
      >>
      >>I noticed that WURLF have a nice structure (and the fallback
      >>mechanism is
      >>really great), but misses some data :
      >>
      >>- Brand name in human readable form (and/or metadata)
      >>- Model name in human readable form
      >>- SMS infos (supports Long SMS? and in which format? supports OTA?
      >>supports
      >>Picture Messaging? and in which format?)
      >>- MMS infos (supports MMS? if there are some limitations .... which
      >>ones?)
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >I am glad someone mentioned this, as I had to add this for a project a few
      >days ago. I kept things simple for my code by merging the vendor and the
      >model into one capability tag. Below is an example of what I currently have:
      >
      ><group id="product_info">
      > <capability name="model_name" value="Nokia 7650"/>
      ></group>
      >
      >Although, I am thinking it is better to use two fields, such as:
      >
      ><group id="product_info">
      > <capability name="vendor" value="Nokia"/>
      > <capability name="model" value="7650"/>
      ></group>
      >
      >Any preferences to which style to use?
      >Also, what should be done about the case where the vendor changes name?
      >For example, there is now SonyEricsson and previously Ericsson and Sony.
      >I am using Ericsson for the older phones before the change, but SonyEricsson
      >for the new phones.
      >
      >
      >
      >>Now, this is what i was thinking about : i can add the human names to
      >>all
      >>the entries in the WURLF on my own, and think about a way to describe
      >>the
      >>SMS and MMS functions. Unfortunately at the moment i don't have
      >>access to
      >>many cell phones to retrieve SMS and MMS infos, if not searching on
      >>the
      >>internet, but once the specficiation is out there it will be filled
      >>one way
      >>or the other.
      >>
      >>Let me know,
      >>Simone
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >Of course, I am willing to help out Simone and others in adding this
      >information.
      >
      >Best,
      >Zev Blut
      >
      >
      >Please read the FAQ before you ask questions: http://www.thewirelessfaq.com
      >
      >Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming for archive and subscription options
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Zev Blut
      Hello, ... If you look in the mail archives I have not been extraordinarily silent about adopting the WURFL. Of course, maybe in the past months I have been
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        On Monday 07 April 2003 19:48, luca passani wrote:
        > Zev, great to know that people are silently adopting the WURFL!!!
        >

        If you look in the mail archives I have not been extraordinarily silent about
        adopting the WURFL. Of course, maybe in the past months I have been ;-)

        > Personally, I think that since the purpose of this capability is to be
        > human readable,
        > it makes sense to have a single string

        It can serve for more than just human readability, but that is certainly a
        benefit. For my case I want to uniquely identify the handset type (not the
        user-agent) in my code so I was going to either join the two tags or go my
        current route of making it one tag.

        >
        > <capability name="common_model_name" value="Nokia 7110 AKA the big green
        > banana full of bugs" />
        >

        Is there any reason you want to call it common_model_name as opposed to
        model_name?

        > if you start using two fields, then you are back to parsing and you
        > loose a bit of the point
        > with the spirit of having a humar readable description
        >

        One advantage of having it as two tags would be a simple query based on
        vendor, such on all Sharp handsets in the WURFL. Of course, this can be
        programmatically done via one tag, but if the vendor name is long then it
        could make things more difficult in distinguishing where the vendor ends and
        the model begins,

        Best,
        Zev Blut

        > luca
        >
        > Zev Blut wrote:
        > >Greetings,
        > >
        > >My comments about adding vendor/brand and model names to the WURFL are
        > > below.
        > >
        > >On Friday 04 April 2003 23:32, laszlo_nadai wrote:
        > >>Here is a mail I received off-list:
        > >>
        > >>Hi Laszlo,
        > >>here is Simone, i'm studying WURLF since I'm doing a site that uses
        > >>WAP/SMS/MMS and similar stuff, and having a good source of infos on
        > >>cellphones would be a great thing.
        > >>
        > >>I noticed that WURLF have a nice structure (and the fallback
        > >>mechanism is
        > >>really great), but misses some data :
        > >>
        > >>- Brand name in human readable form (and/or metadata)
        > >>- Model name in human readable form
        > >>- SMS infos (supports Long SMS? and in which format? supports OTA?
        > >>supports
        > >>Picture Messaging? and in which format?)
        > >>- MMS infos (supports MMS? if there are some limitations .... which
        > >>ones?)
        > >
        > >I am glad someone mentioned this, as I had to add this for a project a few
        > >days ago. I kept things simple for my code by merging the vendor and the
        > >model into one capability tag. Below is an example of what I currently
        > > have:
        > >
        > ><group id="product_info">
        > > <capability name="model_name" value="Nokia 7650"/>
        > ></group>
        > >
        > >Although, I am thinking it is better to use two fields, such as:
        > >
        > ><group id="product_info">
        > > <capability name="vendor" value="Nokia"/>
        > > <capability name="model" value="7650"/>
        > ></group>
        > >
        > >Any preferences to which style to use?
        > >Also, what should be done about the case where the vendor changes name?
        > >For example, there is now SonyEricsson and previously Ericsson and Sony.
        > >I am using Ericsson for the older phones before the change, but
        > > SonyEricsson for the new phones.
        > >
        > >>Now, this is what i was thinking about : i can add the human names to
        > >>all
        > >>the entries in the WURLF on my own, and think about a way to describe
        > >>the
        > >>SMS and MMS functions. Unfortunately at the moment i don't have
        > >>access to
        > >>many cell phones to retrieve SMS and MMS infos, if not searching on
        > >>the
        > >>internet, but once the specficiation is out there it will be filled
        > >>one way
        > >>or the other.
        > >>
        > >>Let me know,
        > >>Simone
        > >
        > >Of course, I am willing to help out Simone and others in adding this
        > >information.
        > >
        > >Best,
        > >Zev Blut
        > >
        > >
        > >Please read the FAQ before you ask questions:
        > > http://www.thewirelessfaq.com
        > >
        > >Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming for archive and
        > > subscription options
        > >
        > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        > Please read the FAQ before you ask questions: http://www.thewirelessfaq.com
        >
        > Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming for archive and
        > subscription options
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • luca passani
        Zev Blut wrote ... well, the idea is the name which is commonly used to describe the telephone ... This seems in fact a slightly different use than what the
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Zev Blut wrote

          >><capability name="common_model_name" value="Nokia 7110 AKA the big green
          >>banana full of bugs" />
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >Is there any reason you want to call it common_model_name as opposed to
          >model_name?
          >
          >
          well, the idea is the name which is commonly used to describe the telephone

          >>if you start using two fields, then you are back to parsing and you
          >>loose a bit of the point
          >>with the spirit of having a humar readable description
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >One advantage of having it as two tags would be a simple query based on
          >vendor, such on all Sharp handsets in the WURFL. Of course, this can be
          >programmatically done via one tag, but if the vendor name is long then it
          >could make things more difficult in distinguishing where the vendor ends and
          >the model begins,
          >
          This seems in fact a slightly different use than what the original
          poster was proposing,
          but maybe not. Andrea, what's your take on this?

          Luca


          >
          >
        • Boris Granveaud
          ... Personnaly, I think it is easier to separate vendor and model in two capabilities. It is the same cost (maybe lower if you consider that you don t have to
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >
            >>One advantage of having it as two tags would be a simple query based on
            >>vendor, such on all Sharp handsets in the WURFL. Of course, this can be
            >>programmatically done via one tag, but if the vendor name is long then it
            >>could make things more difficult in distinguishing where the vendor ends and
            >>the model begins,
            >>
            >>
            Personnaly, I think it is easier to separate vendor and model in two
            capabilities. It is the same cost (maybe lower if you consider that you
            don't have to repeat "Nokia" for each Nokia phone) and you allow
            automatic processing (grouping of models by vendor for example).

            --
            Boris Granveaud
            Head of R&D
            Ubicco, a Fi SYSTEM company
            http://www.ubicco.com/

            Chez Fi SYSTEM
            31bis, rue des Longs Prés
            92100 Boulogne-Billancourt
            Tél (standard) : +33 158177171
            Tél (direct) : +33 158177241
          • Andrea Trasatti
            My vote is for two tags: brand and model (the name itself doesn t make big diff). Pros: - you can query per brand (gimme all the Nokia devices). An example:
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              My vote is for two tags: brand and model (the name itself doesn't make big diff).
              Pros:
              - you can query per brand (gimme all the Nokia devices). An example: you want to
              grab all the devices that support nokia ringtones (smartmessaging) this way you'll
              have them all quickly.
              Cons:
              - there might be cases in which two different brands have the same model name. An
              example? SonyEricsson T300 and Samsung T300. If you work on model names
              ONLY, you'll get wrong data. If you know it... You won't do it. ;)

              Any other pros and cons?
              In a project we developed (and already up and running) we have a crossreference
              file that links the device id from WURFL to a human readable naming. This is getting
              worse every day, because we need to keep the two files updated and it's quite
              annoying.

              I would also like to say that I'm really happy that someone proposed this, it is
              something that I was wondering myself but didn't spend any time in writing
              something real.

              Another example of how usefull this will be is if you need to draw dropdowns with a
              list of brands and once the user has picked the brand you build a dropdown of the
              models. This example confirms again that would be better to have one tag for the
              brand and another for the model.

              About what Zev asked for SonyEricsson devices is a big problem. In Italy most of the
              people considers SonyEricsson simply as "Ericsson". I understand that writing in
              WURFL Ericsson in place of SonyEricsson would be something to think and not just
              do it....

              Anyone has any realworld example about this?

              Zev, what did you do in your project?

              I hope Simone is reading this thread, I would like add that information about SMS are
              not listed mainly because they are not realted to WAP... Considering that now the 'W'
              stands for Wireless and not WAP anymore, we could think about adding it...
              Consider that the "sound_format" group is already there... Picture messages and
              logos are supported only by Nokia devices, so... What's left out? Long SMS? Only
              Nokia support long SMS, as far as I remember... What could be added is the "EMS"
              support and maybe would be nice to add info about which contents can be sent over-
              the-air to the devices, such as bookmarks, internet configuration and so on.

              Ideas?

              - Andrea


              > >><capability name="common_model_name" value="Nokia 7110 AKA the big green
              > >>banana full of bugs" />
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >
              > >Is there any reason you want to call it common_model_name as opposed to
              > >model_name?
              > >
              > >
              > well, the idea is the name which is commonly used to describe the telephone
              >
              > >>if you start using two fields, then you are back to parsing and you
              > >>loose a bit of the point
              > >>with the spirit of having a humar readable description
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >
              > >One advantage of having it as two tags would be a simple query based on
              > >vendor, such on all Sharp handsets in the WURFL. Of course, this can be
              > >programmatically done via one tag, but if the vendor name is long then it
              > >could make things more difficult in distinguishing where the vendor ends and
              > >the model begins,
              > >
              > This seems in fact a slightly different use than what the original
              > poster was proposing,
              > but maybe not. Andrea, what's your take on this?



              ====================
              Andrea Trasatti
              Bware Technologies
              http://www.bware.it
            • luca passani
              there is obviously general consensus about the double capability approach, so two capabilities be! what about: brand_name model_name Also, fall_back will help
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                there is obviously general consensus about the double capability approach,
                so two capabilities be!

                what about:

                brand_name
                model_name

                Also, fall_back will help a lot heresince you only have to specify one
                of the two
                and only for a fraction of the existing devices.

                Luca

                Andrea Trasatti wrote:

                >My vote is for two tags: brand and model (the name itself doesn't make big diff).
                >
                >
                >
              • laszlo_nadai
                Of course until all this is implemented, you can always use my WURFL Patch. (In case anyone had a chance to look at it :-) laszlo ... approach, ... one ...
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Of course until all this is implemented, you can always use my WURFL
                  Patch. (In case anyone had a chance to look at it :-)

                  laszlo

                  --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, luca passani <passani@e...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > there is obviously general consensus about the double capability
                  approach,
                  > so two capabilities be!
                  >
                  > what about:
                  >
                  > brand_name
                  > model_name
                  >
                  > Also, fall_back will help a lot heresince you only have to specify
                  one
                  > of the two
                  > and only for a fraction of the existing devices.
                  >
                  > Luca
                  >
                  > Andrea Trasatti wrote:
                  >
                  > >My vote is for two tags: brand and model (the name itself doesn't
                  make big diff).
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                • luca passani
                  Not yet, but it s in my to-do list!!! luca
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 7, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Not yet, but it's in my to-do list!!!

                    luca

                    laszlo_nadai wrote:
                    >
                    > Of course until all this is implemented, you can always use my WURFL
                    > Patch. (In case anyone had a chance to look at it :-)
                    >
                    > laszlo
                    >
                  • Zev Blut
                    Hello, ... Those are fine with me. Should they be put into a new group, such as production_info? Here is an example:
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello,

                      On Monday 07 April 2003 22:22, luca passani wrote:
                      > there is obviously general consensus about the double capability approach,
                      > so two capabilities be!
                      >
                      > what about:
                      >
                      > brand_name
                      > model_name
                      >

                      Those are fine with me. Should they be put into a new group, such as
                      production_info?
                      Here is an example:

                      <group id="product_info">
                      <capability name="brand_name" value="Nokia"/>
                      <capability name="model_name" value="7650"/>
                      </group>


                      > Also, fall_back will help a lot heresince you only have to specify one
                      > of the two
                      > and only for a fraction of the existing devices.
                      >

                      Indeed, it is very helpful for this!

                      Best,
                      Zev

                      > Luca
                      >
                      > Andrea Trasatti wrote:
                      > >My vote is for two tags: brand and model (the name itself doesn't make big
                      > > diff).
                      >
                      > Please read the FAQ before you ask questions: http://www.thewirelessfaq.com
                      >
                      > Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming for archive and
                      > subscription options
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • Andrea Trasatti
                      ... There are two choices, to me: 1) a new group that can be expanded in the future if we ever need it 2) add new attributes to the device tag. I vote for a
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > > brand_name
                        > > model_name
                        > >
                        >
                        > Those are fine with me. Should they be put into a new group, such as
                        > production_info?
                        > Here is an example:
                        >
                        > <group id="product_info">
                        > <capability name="brand_name" value="Nokia"/>
                        > <capability name="model_name" value="7650"/>
                        > </group>

                        There are two choices, to me:
                        1) a new group that can be expanded in the future if we ever need it
                        2) add new attributes to the 'device' tag.

                        I vote for a new group... A new group will fit into all the libraries we already have
                        without a glitch.

                        - Andrea

                        ===================
                        Andrea Trasatti
                        BWARE TECHNOLOGIES
                        via San Gregorio, 3 - 20124 Milan - Italy
                        http://www.bware.it
                        Tel. +39 02 2779181
                        Fax +39 02 27791828
                        Cell. +39 335 7866749
                      • luca passani
                        OK. Let s go for the new group! product_info luca
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 8, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          OK. Let's go for the new group!

                          product_info

                          luca

                          Andrea Trasatti wrote:
                          >
                          > > > brand_name
                          > > > model_name
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > Those are fine with me. Should they be put into a new group, such as
                          > > production_info?
                          > > Here is an example:
                          > >
                          > > <group id="product_info">
                          > > <capability name="brand_name" value="Nokia"/>
                          > > <capability name="model_name" value="7650"/>
                          > > </group>
                          >
                          > There are two choices, to me:
                          > 1) a new group that can be expanded in the future if we ever need it
                          > 2) add new attributes to the 'device' tag.
                          >
                          > I vote for a new group... A new group will fit into all the libraries we already have
                          > without a glitch.
                          >
                          > - Andrea
                          >
                          > ===================
                          > Andrea Trasatti
                          > BWARE TECHNOLOGIES
                          > via San Gregorio, 3 - 20124 Milan - Italy
                          > http://www.bware.it
                          > Tel. +39 02 2779181
                          > Fax +39 02 27791828
                          > Cell. +39 335 7866749
                          >
                          > Please read the FAQ before you ask questions: http://www.thewirelessfaq.com
                          >
                          > Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming for archive and subscription options
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.