Vjacheslav Chekushin wrote:
Just remark.
SX1 behavior _NOT_ conforms to wap specification, because besides general
encoding there is well-known encoding for Accept header:
8.4.2.7 Accept field
The following rules are used to encode accept values.
Accept-value = Constrained-media |
Replying to Stipe Tolj:
ok, agreeing for the 'Accept-value = Constrained-media |
_Accept-general-form_' value. _BUT_ what about _Constrained-media_?
If comes up to Extension-media where the reference BNF is used. IMO the
Accept encoded byte 0x80 followed by a 0*TEXT (hence nothing),
You are right, IMHO. Extension media means free textual
representation,
which includes an empty string.
Of course, one likes to know why Siemens is using such a useless seeming
header. Does Siemens phone work without it? (Be generous what use
accept,
etc.)
Aarno
On 21.1.2005, at 09:21, Stipe
Stipe Tolj wrote:
Vjacheslav Chekushin wrote:
Just remark.
SX1 behavior _NOT_ conforms to wap specification, because besides general
encoding there is well-known encoding for Accept header:
8.4.2.7 Accept field
The following rules are used to encode accept values.
Accept-value = Constrained-media
Slave, what spec are you reading ?
From WAP-203-WSP-2504, clause 8.4.2.1:
x-tad-smallerConstrained-encoding = Extension-Media | Short-integer
; This encoding is used for token values, which have no well-known binary encoding, or when
; the assigned number of the well-known encoding is small
You are rigth, I give up.
I have printed basic rules from one of the first final WSP spec (1998).
As I see it was changed. Heh, I'll need to refresh some printed hand-on
materials :(.
Aarno Syvänen wrote:
Slave, what spec are you reading ?
From WAP-203-WSP-2504, clause 8.4.2.1:
Alexander Malysh wrote:
Hallo together,
attached you can find a patch that adds backtrace support to gwmem-check.
w/o backtrace is this module really hard to use.
Comments and votes please!
commited to cvs...
--
Thanks,
Alex
Jon!
On Wednesday, 2005-01-19 at 05:07:45 AM, Jonathan Houser scribbled:
Benjamin,
Well it's really up to you... but if you do decide to post the diff or
a URL to the diff... other developers can eye the code and give you
feedback (if they feel like it, of course).
Good
Ben,
I guess since I opened *my* big mouth... ;-O I should take a look at the
code. ;-) Stay tuned...
Note that I'm going to clean up the code and split it into
separate diff's as per Alex's request. Just trying to find the time at
the moment. :) Thanks for the extra set of eyes,
