Paul Keogh wrote: > > > > > now basically they complain that Kannel does not check the UAProf > > profile of a device and hence does not recognize that certain > > mime-types can or can't be accepted by the device. > > But can the list of acceptable MIME types not be checked against the > Accept: MIME headers ? I don't see this as a UAProf activity. Is it > the case that not all supported MIME types are listed in the Accept: > headers and that the UAProf document holds the definitive list ?
sort of. To be honest I'm also not aware of if 100%. They claimed that Kannel dropped the HTTP response because the HTTP server responded with text/html and *if* Kannel would have supported UAProf it *would* know that the device can do something with it. Something like that. BTW, did you sign the NDA stuff for Open Group? I'd like to have you boarded in the REFPOOL issue. > > yes, I guess UAProf is not only about passing the information. It is > > also about dealing with it in terms of allowing to modify mime-types > > to fit the needs of the device. Or am I wrong here? > > I think that what a gateway is supposed to do with UAProf information is > not specified in the WAP standards and is implementation dependent. agreed. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- wapme.net - wherever you are
