I'm wondering to what extend the new definition would add value, or is more likely to introduce confusion.
Smartphones might be more likely to offer specialized functionality, but as the set of functionality that's offered by a particular model will likely be different from another model, you'd have to discover support for individual functionality anyway. Perhaps 'smartphone' would suggest better/more stable connectivity, as a smartphone is more likely to utilize a higher generation of mobile telecommunications technology and/or WiFi, but that's an iffy deduction at best. Any other distinctive characteristics that I'm missing? If not, I'd prefer not to add another identity (although I'll not be a vocal opponent either). Regards, - Guus On 30 November 2012 15:11, Kozlov Konstantin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 30.11.2012, 12:26, "Kevin Smith" <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > 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! >
