The idea of the patch files in W3C/OpenDDR was always to allow custom improvement of detection, e.g. if a large company has mostly 1600x900 desk screen, that would go there. Providing a default common value out of the box is a good idea, but it should be possible for those companies to override it in *Patch.
Will try it should work, at least using SimpleDDR. For the other clients, it also depends what loading mechanism you chose. If the source is inside a JAR or from a remote service, then the only way to offer patching would be a "chain" of sources, i.E. load the default from a service, but offer a patch locally in the application's classpath or file system. Maybe something to consider or put in the backlog... Werner On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good, will have a look. > Note, the "vendor" field defined by Core DDR is normally the DEVICE > vendor, so except XBox or latest Nokia([?]) that would not be Microsoft. > There is a separate ODDR introduced "os_vendor", that would work for > Microsoft, but except in Apple's case the OS and device vendors are rarely > the same. Another custom property is something like "marketing_name" that > applies to e.g. some of the "Nexus" devices, where the actual device vendor > is often ASUS, LG or Samsung. That's a grey zone, but also for Android at > most Google could be considered OS_Vendor, not device vendor in most cases. > > Werner > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Reza <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I went ahead and moved the generic devices into the core device file: >> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/devicemap/trunk/data/device-data/src/main/resources/devicedata/DeviceDataSource.xml?r1=1614520&r2=1614797 >> >> >> So go ahead and make sure all the attributes look good and please feel >> free to make changes as you see fit. Example, for a windowsDesktop, I put >> the vendor down as Microsoft, not sure if that is correct. Once this is all >> set, I will go ahead and link the patterns back to these devices. >> >> Also, for the screen resolution, I moved it back to 800x600. When I >> thought about it, it might be better to have the value be the *MINIMUM* >> resolution for a desktop just incase there is logic which decides on a >> layout based on minimum width (I have seen this before). If you want to 0 >> it out, no biggie. >> > >
