[JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines

[Richard Dobson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" <dave at dave.tj>
To: <jdev at jabber.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines

> > any means it is part of the wap standards, I said all of this because
your
> I happen to hate the WAP standards, but that's neither here nor there;
> they _are_ pretty much standardized, and there's not much I can do about
> it at this point: just being sour about it is silly.  However, I would
> insist that any device that supports images be able to read PNG format
> files, because standards are good, and should therefore be supported.

Well insist all you want, the fact is WAP phones do not support .png, deal
with it, or go and argue this with Nokia (and the other mobile
manufacturers). Also were are you getting the impression from that PNG is
THE universal format suitable for all devices, why not let people use
formats most suited to the environment they are designed for.

> > method assumes that the receiving client (in this case a WAP phone)
> > definately supports the image format you are sending it, and if you are
> > sending .png, .gif, or .jpg a WAP phone would be unable to support it,
this
> > is YAP (yet another problem) with your system.
> Obviously, there's a cruel little HTTP-based solution you can use
> if you're fundamentally opposed to standard image formats, involving
> client capability negotiation (totally compatible with HTTP/1.0 and 1.1).
> Briefly, here's how it works: when your client sends a request to an HTTP
> server, it normally sends an HTTP-Accept header, listing all the MIME
> types that your client understands.  There's nothing stopping the server
> from sending a version of the image that's in - or even converting an
> image on-the-fly from whatever format it's stored in into - some format
> that the client supports.
> Most popular web servers support client capability negotiation.
> (A variation on the same is often used to decide what language to send
> a document in, BTW.)

Urm riggghttt, so now you are proposing that we write stuff for the
webserver hosting the images, you really are making a mountain out of a mole
hill over this arnt you, emoticons do not have to be this complicated. Also
the capability mechanism you suggest is not compatible with your previous
postings that indicate clients should be requesting PNG files, it is part of
the HTTP spec im sure that if you request a particular document of a
particular format that should be send to the client not a completely
different format file.