| DRM in Multipart.Related and Mixed |  Search
|
|
NowSMS Support Forums ⬆ NowSMS Support - MMS & Advanced Issues ⬆ Archive through December 01, 2004 ⬆ |
◄ ► |
| Author | Message | |||
| Shehzad Unregistered guest |
Hi Bryce, I have used the Forward Lock for Nokia but noticed that forward lock on the content in SMIL doesnt work. But if we create the Forwardlock contents we have to send it as a multipart.mixed message. Kindly is there any way to implement forwardlockin Multipart.related. Bye | |||
| Bryce Norwood - NowSMS Support Board Administrator Username: Bryce Post Number: 3674 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Shehzad, As the SMIL file only contains references to the forward locked objects (the objects themselves which cannot be forwarded), what benefit is there to forward locking the SMIL content? I'm just wondering ... as the SMIL does not contain any actual content ... do you really have a reason to forward lock it? -bn | |||
| Shehzad Unregistered guest |
Hi, The problem i am facing is that when i use the forward locked object with SMIL i.e. Multipart/Related it doesn't work, but when the same object are sent without SMIL i.e. Multipart/Mixed forward lock works. I just want to know the reason. I can also provide the sample MM1 file if you want me to. Thanks. /////////////////////////////////////////// | |||
| Bryce Norwood - NowSMS Support Board Administrator Username: Bryce Post Number: 3683 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Shehzad, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question before, so thanks for the clarification. I thought there was a simple answer to this question. However, I spent some time today sending test forward-lock messages out to a SE 700i, only to find myself totally confused. For Nokia phones, you need to include "Content-location:" and/or "Content-ID" headers within the DRM object. That way the SMIL file can reference the object embedded inside of the DRM, instead of the DRM object. However, the SE700i can't understand a DRM object if it includes "Content-Location" and/or "Content-ID" headers. It seems to expect that if these headers are present, it wants a rights object to be present. So more investigation is required, and it seems that different devices have different interpretations of how things should be done. Keep experimenting ... and I will as well, as time permits ... | |||
