|
|
|
|
|
by azdle
4339 days ago
|
|
Yep, I over counted the bytes in the AltBeacon spec, but I still think that a URI-based beacon would be very beneficial. I'm not saying that it needs to fit into the iBeacon or AltBeacon specs, I'm just commenting that I think we'd be much better off with a beaconing protocol that doesn't require some central database controlled by one company. I don't know that much about iBeacon and how the major and minor work, but something similar could work by using a aa.bbb.cc/xxx/yyy type of URL. Sure you're wasting 2-4 bytes on the slashes and dots, but I think that would be worth it to have it be a completely open protocol. Something you should know about me, I'm overly excitable. I've decided that we need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases. I'm going to create OpenBeacon! http://obcn.io |
|
Do you know if there's a technical reason for ad packets to be so small?
I like the idea of using URIs, but if beacons automatically caused my device send arbitrary network requests along with any kind of identifying information it could be quite scary (someone could track my location in real time by tossing a bunch of cheap beacons around).
Also, you'll probably want to cram a URI scheme in there.