In The WAP Trap, we enumerated the characteristics of the WAP specifications that make them wholly unfit to be the industry standard. These characteristics are summarized in Table 1, along with the corresponding characteristics of the LEAP protocols.
|
As noted in The WAP Trap, the WAP specifications include patented components. Unlike WAP, the LEAP protocols are entirely patent-free.
As noted previously, the LEAP protocols are published as Internet RFCs, ensuring permanent, unrestricted availability of the protocols. The WAP specifications, on the other hand, are self-published by the WAP Forum, and therefore do not carry the same assurances of unrestricted availability. The availability and permanence of the WAP specifications is only as good as that of the WAP Forum itself.
Furthermore, in order to download any particular WAP specification, a user must agree to a license agreement. By contrast, the LEAP protocols may be downloaded and distributed without any licensing restrictions.
In addition, the WAP Forum's publishing philosophy carries no guarantee of stability. As of February 2000, each WAP specification carries on its title page the disclaimer, ``This document is subject to change without notice.'' By virtue of the RFC publication process, on the other hand, individual revisions of the LEAP protocols are permanently fixed.
LEAP's open maintenance processes are also in sharp contrast to WAP. Participation in the development of the WAP specifications requires payment of the $27,000 WAP Forum membership fee (as of February 2000), and takes place entirely behind closed doors. Unlike WAP, the LEAP protocols are maintained by public maintenance organizations in which anyone is free to participate.
The WAP protocols also include numerous technical deficiencies. As discussed in The WAP Trap, WAP is a broad-scope re-invention of existing protocols. The LEAP protocols, by contrast, consist of a small number of independent protocols that complement existing Internet protocols. Various other technical deficiences of WAP, and the corresponding LEAP characteristics, are also listed in Table 1.
There are also significant conceptual differences between LEAP and WAP, of which we will mention two here. First, LEAP is primarily oriented towards the mobile messaging (i.e. e-mail) application, whereas WAP is primarily oriented towards mobile web browsing. We believe that this represents a serious misunderstanding of the mobile data communications industry on the part of the WAP Forum. Hand-held mobile devices are extremely well-suited to the e-mail application, whereas their severe user interface limitations render them highly ill-suited to web browsing.
Second, LEAP and WAP take very different approaches to the messaging application. The two approaches are largely complementary. The LEAP approach, embodied in the EMSD protocol, is a complete and efficient submission and delivery model. The WAP approach, on the other hand, is a mailbox access and selective message retrieval model.
A consequence of this is that the WAP protocol has several unresolved issues relating to message delivery. For example, the WAP protocol does not support the ``push'' model of message delivery, in which urgent messages are actively delivered to the recipient. The LEAP protocol, by contrast, fully supports the ``push'' model.