Talk:Wireless Application Protocol
|WikiProject Telecommunications||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This talk has been copied from Wireless Application Protocol
I intend to clean up WAP and WAP associated pages, but don't let that deter you from having a go.
Before starting I have revised the titles structure. Because most of the WAP links in Wiki have WAP in the text but redirect to Wireless Application Protocol, WAP, is considered to be the handle that most people have on the subject, as in: I have a WAP phone not I have a Wireless Application Protocol phone. This discussion has a useful historical record on the subject so I have placed it verbatim in Talk:WAP to preserve it. Ex nihil 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like in 2008 or so WAP became a disambig page, which makes sense. W Nowicki (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge with Wap site
Merge. The information in Wap site is very modest and it adds nothing by having it separate. While we are at it I would suggest that Wireless Application Protocol be renamed WAP and redirect the other way around. Everyone is familiar with WAP, I've got a WAP 'phone not a wireles application protocol 'phone. You know what TNT is, would you know what tri-nitro-toluene is? Ex nihil 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- the wap site article no longer contains unique information not included,or better handled in wireless application protocol so it is now diverted to there. Ex nihil 09:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the following is POV, I've copied it across from the GSM article and then decided to put it in the talk here:
Application developers creating a new mobile IP based protocol can
- do the same (not recommended), or
- implement a TCP proxy relay service for the wireless link, or
- utilise the experimental TCP extensions such as Selective ACK that allow TCP to operate better in the presence of non-congestion packet loss, or
- use a new protocol such as SCTP.
somehow I, personally, agree with some of the ideas behind this, but it should be attributed somewhere and balanced by an explanation of why the design choices were made. Historical information about the availability of protocol numbers may be important here.
I suspect that many people, like me, come to this page hoping for help with WAP access to Wikipedia. A while ago I managed to create a WML page that gives a crude interface to Wikipedia, via Google's WML proxy. More details are available on my user page. Could something like this be added to the article, or somewhere else in Wikipedia? – Lee J Haywood 19:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Excellent idea, but I think it would be better to put it in a separate page and then simply create a link to it at the top of the WAP article something like the following (the page name is just from my head, there should be some proper convention for it however. I just don't know what it is).
- This is an article about the Wireless Application Protocol. For details of how to access Wikipedia see Wikipedia:WAP access.
- Mozzerati 07:48, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)hi
There is a trolling link in the External links section (Wap 1 and 2 compared) The admins should fix this.
Why don't you?
Isn't WAP 2.0 released and isn't it follows XHTML-MP ?
yes, wap 2.0 needs to be more clearly defined. - exactly how it differs from xhtml
- Yup. Wireless_Application_Protocol in general needs to be better defined in the Lede section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). For example, how it differs from xhtml or "desktop Web pages", and why mobile devices prefer it, might go far to explain what it is.
- The next section; specs, is too technical, might be better placed elsewhere?
- In general over all, note that a list of facts or truisms is rarely a decent explanation or definition. Also it has too many lazy hypertexts: sentences that for lack of just a few words (as hints) REQUIRE slogging thru another article just to find this site's specific context before digestion can even begin (and many technical sites have the same problem, ad infinitum, causing an information black hole). Hypertext links should not be considered an easy solution to excessive jargon or difficult explanations.
--18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Doug Bashford
A great deal of e-commerce goes over the wap gateway. This article seems seems to be suggesting that WAP might be a failure, which is pretty silly this day and age. Mathiastck 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The article has a Possible failure and a Possible success section. If you read them together, they seem to indicate some kind of success despite technical and political weaknesses. Surely that doesn't contradict your claims? JöG 07:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the Possible success section, is that it suggests that WAP is only a success in Japan, and no where else. The point which should be made, is that, similar to Bluetooth, judgements on success or failure, were made when the technology was just at the infancy of it's product cycle. Hephail 07:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism removed from this article.
It appears that someone has rushed to semi-protect the page. Whats with the last sentence in this section Wireless_Application_Protocol#Wireless_Application_Environment_.28WAE.29?? It looks like someone has deleted part of the section but that edit doesn't appear among the most recent edits, guess it's gone unnoticed or something. 354d 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Just came here trying to find out about WAP Push SI (good) and SL (not even mentioned). So I go off into the cloud googling away and finding no really concrete references I can use. OK, thinks I, lets try some of the ones already on the article... Fat chance! The one used for SI is now dead, and several that point to OMA are password-protected (also not marked). Argggh!
I'll have another go tomorrow, but this certainly deserves a 'refimprove' banner...
WAP NOT for Web Surfing?
Web browsing is not mentioned in the leade section's list. please see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) .
It also appears WAP has no competitors? A quick reading did not shout that WAP is evolving with the times. Is it being dumped? Can new phones do realish HTML yet? The article has an old, abandoned feel. Why? Never mind! quoting article: "Most major companies and websites have since retired from the use of WAP...."
--22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Doug Bashford