On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru> wrote: > 03.12.2012, 12:30, "Kevin Smith" <ke...@kismith.co.uk>: >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru> wrote: >> >>> 30.11.2012, 12:26, "Kevin Smith" <ke...@kismith.co.uk>: >>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html I notice >>>>> that we have disco identities for "client/handheld" (e.g., PDA) and >>>>> "client/phone" (e.g., mobile phone), but I think those are a bit >>>>> old-fashioned by now. We might want to add an identity for >>>>> "client/smartphone" (i.e., a phone that can do a lot more than the >>>>> old-style phones we had in mind when we defined "client/phone"). >>>> If this thing is capable of running an XMPP client on it, it's a >>>> smartphone. >>> Why?! Any cheap J2ME-enabled phone can run XMPP client without any problem. >>> Usually we call "smartphones" only mobile devices with operating system >>> (Symbian, Windows CE/Mobile/Phone, iOS or Android). >>> So, if you call any Java-enabled mobile phone "smartphone", you should >>> agree that no mobile phones produced today at all. Only smartphones! >> >> Yes, that's the point - today's feature phones can do more than >> yesterday's smart phones, so this distinction doesn't provide any >> value that I can see. Distinguishing available features of clients is >> provided through 115/30. > Because of java overheads, it's almost impossible to write audio/video codec > for J2ME. Writing codecs for device native OS is not a problem for last few > years. So, most likely there will be no Jingle RTP support for a phone > client, and there will be one for a smartphone client.
Yes - as I said, there's no reason to look at the identity to guess what features are available in a client. We have 115/30 for this. /K
