This may be true in itself, but where's the relevance? Microsoft has stuck 100% true to the published WAP specs, both in WAP 1.1 products such as Mobile Information Server and Mobile Explorer, and to the published WAP June 2000 Conformance Release in upcoming products such as the Pocket Internet Explorer.
And what does WAP have to do with Microsoft-produced standards, anyway? Except that they're one of some 600 member companies, with one vote out of six hundred?
Whoever wrote this at InfoWorld clearly wasn't at the WAP Forum. The consensus has been for over a year to get rid of all the stuff that was reinvented and use standards instead where appropriate; examples of this include replacing the WSP/WTP/WDP stack with wTCP. But this is the first I have ever seen about replacing WML, and I am very sceptical that it will happen in WAP 2.0.
Sure, there has been workshops on XHTML regularly at the Forum, and there's lots of interesting discussion, but give me a draft spec and some rally around it, and then I'll start believing it's going to happen.
Right now I don't. Not for WAP-NG, anyway (commonly branded WAP 2.0, although that version number decision lies with a committee).
There's tons of different interests trying to rubberstamp lots of different technologies as part of WAP. This is half politics, half paperwork diving, and 10% technology. Over 600 member companies are trying to further their own business interests by influencing the WAP Forum. The result can only be described as... well, look at any parliament and you'll see the same effect in operation.
XHTML may be interesting for now, but WAP-NG is going to throw away the reinvention and stick to standards where available, not add new unknowns.
First and foremost, it is no surprise that IETF fires at WAP and the WAP Forum. The WAP Forum works in an entirely different manner than does the IETF, and is driven by industry groups focused on making money, rather than creating long-term viable technical solutions as is the IETF. As such, the IETF -- having a completely different perspective -- should be horrified by such a rogue body, especially now that the WAP Forum actually has success in getting implementations. And they are. When you talk to IETF guys, they have historically always opposed WAP; this is no news.
Second, Microsoft doesn't reject the standard. Quite to the contrary. Microsoft implements WAP in almost all wireless devices, notably Mobile Explorer which goes into mobile phones -- I don't know why the Pocket Internet Explorer is an exception (or even what it is). Microsoft guys took part in designing the end-to-end security coming in WAP 1.3, and Microsoft guys took part in designing the WAP Push standard arriving in WAP 1.2. These are both key standards and Microsoft are working actively within the WAP Forum, having been a member there for over a year.
Third, WAP is a _lot_ of stuff. Many U.S. folks see WAP as HDML, which is Unwired Planet's (now phone.com's) predecessor to WAP's application-level specifications; WAP has specifications on almost all of the ISO layers. When you say "WAP is bad", do you mean WML? WSP? WTP? WBMP? WTA? There are as of now 31 (thirty-one) approved WAP specs, and while a lot of these are under fire for reinventing existing technology, there is actually a few things that are good and novel within. How about tokenization of HTML (in WBXML?) True Push? Accessing telephony functions (such as "place call" functions) from a web page?
In summary, there seems to be some WAP bashing out there, while WAP phones are shipping in millions. And to those saying it's all bad -- it's not. A lot is reinventing old technology when IETF specs could have done the job. A lot is questionable. But I am certain significant parts of it will survive the initial round -- after all, a LOT of thinking has gone into this, by some of the best experts worldwide on wireless communications.
Re:Of course! It's the acronym.
on
WAP Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
Otherwise, I've heard both the acronyms "World Appreciation Program" (people involved in the WAP Forum get to travel a LOT), "Where Are the Phones?", and "Warm Air Project".
This is just a load of crap. Anyone may freely comment on the business practices of Pez Candy, Inc., even using their logo and _certainly_ the word "PEZ". This is regulated by the Berne Convention on copyrights and immaterial ownership, signed by most countries (including the U.S.) in 1905.
Notably, the same convention causes copyright marks to be completely unnecessary. I don't know why this practice has lived on in the U.S. -- probably a lawyer billage thing.
To clarify: anybody may use a company's name and logo in reviews-comments about that company, as long as the review-comment is not made for profit.
The test used by Oracle was actually withdrawn by the standards test organization behind it, as a result of too many manufacturers trying to shortcut their search engines to suit these special cases. This didn't happen overnight, but as I recall it, no further participation is possible.
The time comes to mind when PC Magazine did video benchmarking, and some manufacturers hardcoded detection for their benchmarking into their hardware, just to skip some of the actual processing load done under the benchmark to boost performance measurements... *smile*
Well, any company is of course free to search anything they want on their network -- if nothing else, just to optimize performance.
However, any company that tried to completely ban private thinking (or communication) in the workplace would see me quitting on the spot. I do a lot of company thinking on "my own" time, and quite some private thinking on "corporate" time, and the employers that don't understand that the line between "corporate time" and "private time" has become heavily blurred over the last 10 years simply don't deserve me working for them.
I wouldn't have trouble with sysadmins scanning my mail, but if he/she can't cope with what he/she reads, it's his/her problem. And any type of content or communication being banned would just make me quit on the spot. I'm their asset, not the other way around.
I'd recommend taking some time to do some serious explaining to HR and then blankly refusing (I'd do it even at the cost of my job, I can get a new one in no time, they can't get a new employee without heavy investments).
Slashdot Mirror
This may be true in itself, but where's the relevance? Microsoft has stuck 100% true to the published WAP specs, both in WAP 1.1 products such as Mobile Information Server and Mobile Explorer, and to the published WAP June 2000 Conformance Release in upcoming products such as the Pocket Internet Explorer.
And what does WAP have to do with Microsoft-produced standards, anyway? Except that they're one of some 600 member companies, with one vote out of six hundred?
Whoever wrote this at InfoWorld clearly wasn't at the WAP Forum. The consensus has been for over a year to get rid of all the stuff that was reinvented and use standards instead where appropriate; examples of this include replacing the WSP/WTP/WDP stack with wTCP. But this is the first I have ever seen about replacing WML, and I am very sceptical that it will happen in WAP 2.0.
Sure, there has been workshops on XHTML regularly at the Forum, and there's lots of interesting discussion, but give me a draft spec and some rally around it, and then I'll start believing it's going to happen.
Right now I don't. Not for WAP-NG, anyway (commonly branded WAP 2.0, although that version number decision lies with a committee).
There's tons of different interests trying to rubberstamp lots of different technologies as part of WAP. This is half politics, half paperwork diving, and 10% technology. Over 600 member companies are trying to further their own business interests by influencing the WAP Forum. The result can only be described as... well, look at any parliament and you'll see the same effect in operation.
XHTML may be interesting for now, but WAP-NG is going to throw away the reinvention and stick to standards where available, not add new unknowns.
First and foremost, it is no surprise that IETF fires at WAP and the WAP Forum. The WAP Forum works in an entirely different manner than does the IETF, and is driven by industry groups focused on making money, rather than creating long-term viable technical solutions as is the IETF. As such, the IETF -- having a completely different perspective -- should be horrified by such a rogue body, especially now that the WAP Forum actually has success in getting implementations. And they are. When you talk to IETF guys, they have historically always opposed WAP; this is no news.
Second, Microsoft doesn't reject the standard. Quite to the contrary. Microsoft implements WAP in almost all wireless devices, notably Mobile Explorer which goes into mobile phones -- I don't know why the Pocket Internet Explorer is an exception (or even what it is). Microsoft guys took part in designing the end-to-end security coming in WAP 1.3, and Microsoft guys took part in designing the WAP Push standard arriving in WAP 1.2. These are both key standards and Microsoft are working actively within the WAP Forum, having been a member there for over a year.
Third, WAP is a _lot_ of stuff. Many U.S. folks see WAP as HDML, which is Unwired Planet's (now phone.com's) predecessor to WAP's application-level specifications; WAP has specifications on almost all of the ISO layers. When you say "WAP is bad", do you mean WML? WSP? WTP? WBMP? WTA? There are as of now 31 (thirty-one) approved WAP specs, and while a lot of these are under fire for reinventing existing technology, there is actually a few things that are good and novel within. How about tokenization of HTML (in WBXML?) True Push? Accessing telephony functions (such as "place call" functions) from a web page?
In summary, there seems to be some WAP bashing out there, while WAP phones are shipping in millions. And to those saying it's all bad -- it's not. A lot is reinventing old technology when IETF specs could have done the job. A lot is questionable. But I am certain significant parts of it will survive the initial round -- after all, a LOT of thinking has gone into this, by some of the best experts worldwide on wireless communications.
Otherwise, I've heard both the acronyms "World Appreciation Program" (people involved in the WAP Forum get to travel a LOT), "Where Are the Phones?", and "Warm Air Project".
This is just a load of crap. Anyone may freely comment on the business practices of Pez Candy, Inc., even using their logo and _certainly_ the word "PEZ". This is regulated by the Berne Convention on copyrights and immaterial ownership, signed by most countries (including the U.S.) in 1905.
Notably, the same convention causes copyright marks to be completely unnecessary. I don't know why this practice has lived on in the U.S. -- probably a lawyer billage thing.
To clarify: anybody may use a company's name and logo in reviews-comments about that company, as long as the review-comment is not made for profit.
Dick
The test used by Oracle was actually withdrawn by the standards test organization behind it, as a result of too many manufacturers trying to shortcut their search engines to suit these special cases. This didn't happen overnight, but as I recall it, no further participation is possible.
The time comes to mind when PC Magazine did video benchmarking, and some manufacturers hardcoded detection for their benchmarking into their hardware, just to skip some of the actual processing load done under the benchmark to boost performance measurements... *smile*
Well, any company is of course free to search anything they want on their network -- if nothing else, just to optimize performance.
However, any company that tried to completely ban private thinking (or communication) in the workplace would see me quitting on the spot. I do a lot of company thinking on "my own" time, and quite some private thinking on "corporate" time, and the employers that don't understand that the line between "corporate time" and "private time" has become heavily blurred over the last 10 years simply don't deserve me working for them.
I wouldn't have trouble with sysadmins scanning my mail, but if he/she can't cope with what he/she reads, it's his/her problem. And any type of content or communication being banned would just make me quit on the spot. I'm their asset, not the other way around.
I'd recommend taking some time to do some serious explaining to HR and then blankly refusing (I'd do it even at the cost of my job, I can get a new one in no time, they can't get a new employee without heavy investments).