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

SV: [wmlprogramming] Possible opportunities for refactoring WURFL device attributes

Expand Messages
  • Anders Magnus Andersen
    ... Surprise, surprise...: I have tested two phones that support 3gp video but do not support 3gp streaming: - A Siemens (can t remember the model) - HTC p3300
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 9, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Shaun Barriball wrote:



      > * if a phones video player supports 3GPP for download I'd be surprised if
      >didn't support 3GPP for streaming



      Surprise, surprise...:



      I have tested two phones that support 3gp video but do not support 3gp streaming:

      - A Siemens (can't remember the model)

      - HTC p3300 (windows mobile). This phone supports streaming, but does not support *3GP* streaming out of the box.



      Regards,

      Anders Magnus Andersen

      ________________________________

      Fra: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com] På vegne av Luca Passani
      Sendt: 9. januar 2007 10:18
      Til: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: [wmlprogramming] Possible opportunities for refactoring WURFL device attributes



      > My motivation for the post was to suggest ways
      > to make WURFL easier to maintain

      That's always welcome. I wonder if this suggestions could find some
      application within WURFL evolution. Which HTTP headers can tell me about
      video?
      In WURFL evolution, each module will have a capability matrix, so we may
      be able to do a lot of good guesses before we default to generic

      Luca

      Shaun Barriball wrote:

      >Hi Luca, Andrea et al,
      >While reviewing the WURFL device attributes I notice that some properties
      >would appear to be candidates for normalisation.
      >
      >For example,
      > * if a phones video player supports 3GPP for download I'd be surprised if
      >didn't support 3GPP for streaming which would imply that the capability
      >"video_3gpp" is sufficient and streaming_3gpp is redundant. I'd suggest this
      >is true for many of the attributes in the "streaming" section that have
      >download video equivalents. You certainly need "streaming_video",
      >"streaming_video_max_video_bit_rate" etc.
      >
      > * "video" is really a dynamic result of checking
      >[video_real_media_8,video_real_media_9,video_real_media_10,video_3gpp,
      >video_3gpp2,video_mp4,video_wmv,video_mov]. I can see the need for
      >convenience capability but there is a risk that "video" may not be updated
      >when one of the specific format capabilities is (although after a quick
      >review it seems "video" is set as well in most cases).
      >
      >* "streaming_video_size_limit" - do many phones have a limit on the size of
      >the video being streamed given that the device is watching a sliding window
      >over the video? I note this capability is only set in a limited number of
      >cases.
      >
      >Apologies if this has been debated in the past (I couldn't see any similar
      >posts with a Google search). My motivation for the post was to suggest ways
      >to make WURFL easier to maintain :)
      >
      >Regards,
      >Shaun.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.