Talk:Open Mobile Alliance

POV?

The Buzzword laden first paragraph only seems to praise OMA for all its worth, and by the looks of the first edit it has possibly been made by someone working for the OMA. It also needs to be expanded, information on members? I only know Nokia & Vodafone. When it was set up? why?

. I agree about the buzzwords in first paragraph. "Open standard" already is not POV...

SyncML Consortium -> SyncML Initiative

Tasmanian Angel 19:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

SyncML Consortium's oficial name is 'SyncML Initiative Ltd.'. I suggest to change the 'Consortium' term to 'Initiative' and create a new article on 'SyncML Initiative' briefly describing its historical role and referring back to OMA article.

No Icon

There is no icon of OMA. There should be an icon of OMA & preferably in .svg format

[[User:Shirishag75|Shirishag75]] (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What's open about the OMA?

I'm a web developer, and I'd like access to WAP specifications that can help web servers communicate with mobile devices. My searches took me to various WAP/OMA pages, where I found that these "open" specifications are for members only. So then I found seven links regarding OMA membership. Three were dead and four were password protected. The most egregious example was the public contact page, http://www.wapforum.org/site/contact.htm, whose web form responded to my request for information by demanding a password! Why on earth did they put this form on a public page if it's not for public use?! According to http://www.cellular.co.za/technologies/forums/oma.htm, delivering "open" standards is indeed part of the OMA charter, but the FRAND licensing agreement is hardly what software developers mean by the word "open". Based on these observations, I believe that OMA's use of the word "open" is erroneous and misleading at best.

I would like this Wikipedia article to clarify what, if anything, is open about the OMA. Specifically, I'd like to know which of the OMA's "open" standards are available to the public, how members of the public can gain access to them, and what the criteria for OMA membership is. Page Notes (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Open Mobile Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051210203119/http://www.openmobilealliance.org:80/docs/Articles_of_Association2004.pdf to http://www.openmobilealliance.org/docs/Articles_of_Association2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability of OMA Standard specifications

I don't think they are notable. I redirected a bunch of stub entries here; and put a merge notice on the remaining longer ones: OMA Device Management, OMA LWM2M, OMA Instant Messaging and Presence Service and OMA DRM. Any objections to redirecting those here too? I don't know if there is anything worth merging, they are poorly referenced anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Against. Merging a page about a standardization body with its standards—it does not sound good. Kolarp (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)