On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 03:25:01PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 04:21:30AM -0700, DC wrote:
> > I don't think the 'tel' tag is designed for video calls, just voice.
>
> There is no 'tel' tag, but there is a 'tel' scheme. A video call is still a
> voice call too - it's not a completely different medium.
>
> > the phone has two buttons for different call initiation procedures and isn't
> > able to detect what its calling and switch automatically (eg from voice to
> > 64k circuit switched video mode).
>
> So if you try to make a video call, does the call simply fail if the called
> number doesn't support video calls? If so, that's a serious UI flaw, in my
> opinion.
If you try to call a non-video phone using the video dial option, the
call will fail unfortunately and not switch to voice. This is at least
true when calling a non 3G phone. Pitty isn't it. The error you get is
"Failed to connect". Explains itself really :)
> > one way to resolve this would be to implement a new tag for video calls...
>
> That's a stupid way to do things. It would be better to add a parameter to
> URLs (e.g. tel:...;vnd.nttdcomo.video=1). Unfortunately this might confuse
> old phones that have a very limited knowledge of the 'tel' URL scheme, so
> maybe it would be necessary.
DoCoMo already has added new parameters, but not for video. They basically
added the telbook parameter which makes it handy for someone to add you
to their telephone book without having to type in your name etc. It's
still limited but there...
http://www.nttdocomo.com/i/tag/tel.html
The notes on this page and my testing confirm that...
* Terminals that do not support this function will only recognize the HREF
attribute and will function with the PHONE TO and MAIL TO functions.
Cheers,
Tom.
--
Thomas O'Dowd. - Nooping - http://nooper.com
tom_at_nooper.com - Testing - http://nooper.co.jp/labs
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Mon Oct 8 17:33:56 2001