Hi Patrick,
On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:43 , Patrick Ohly wrote:
Speaking of CtCap, do you happen to know what Nokia's involvement was in
the definition of that part of the spec? Or speaking more generally,
what was the desired usage of CtCap?
I've just been in another discussion around that, where the Synthesis
use of CtCap to determine unsupported properties was questioned.
One interpretation of CtCap is limitations for some properties. In
that interpretation, unlisted properties might still be supported.
The other interpretation is that CtCap has to be complete and accurate,
and thus anything not covered by it (value too long, unknown property)
is not stored by the device. This is the interpretation used by
Synthesis. FWIW, it sounds more plausible to me.
The real world devices that most prominently and strictly supported our
interpretation were Nokia's.
We had a lot of trouble of getting all data out of them without entirely
omitting CTCap in the beginning, until we found that not only all properties
needed to be listed (that was the case already in very early versions of our
server), but also the complete list of possible property parameters. For
example, a Nokia phone would not send any telephone number unless the CTCap had
not only TEL but also the possible property parameters WORK, HOME,
CELL...
And because their clients were for a long time pretty much the only ones
looking at CTCap at all apart from ours, I'd at least say that this
interpretation is a de facto standard.
But I have no insight into the involvement of Nokia in that part of the specs.
But is there anything in the standard which supports one or the other
interpretation?
If there is, I am not aware of it.
Or perhaps it was part of meeting minutes?
Maybe, I don't know.
Lukas Zeller (l...@synthesis.ch)
-
Synthesis AG, SyncML Solutions Sustainable Software Concepts
i...@synthesis.ch, http://www.synthesis.ch
___
os-libsynthesis mailing list
os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch
http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
