Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) is a technical standard for accessing

information over a mobile wireless network. A WAP browser is a web browser

for mobile devices such as mobile phones that uses the protocol.
Before the introduction of WAP, mobile service providers had limited
opportunities to ofer interactive data services, but needed interactivit to
support !nternet and Web applications such as"
#mail b mobile phone
$racking of stock%market prices
&ports results
'ews headlines
(usic downloads
$he )apanese i%mode sstem ofers another ma*or competing wireless data
protocol. As of +,-., WAP use has largel disappeared in #urope and the
/nited &tates. (ost modern handset internet browsers now support full
0$(1, so do not need to use WAP markup for webpage compatibilit.$he WAP
standard described a protocol suite allowing the interoperabilit of WAP
e2uipment, and software with diferent network technologies, such as 3&(
and !&%45 (also known as 67(A).
Wireless Application #nvironment (WA#) WAP protocol suite
Wireless &ession Protocol (W&P)
Wireless $ransaction Protocol (W$P)
Wireless $ransport 1aer &ecurit (W$1&)
Wireless 7atagram Protocol (W7P)
888 An Wireless 7ata 'etwork 888
$he bottom%most protocol in the suite, the WAP 7atagram Protocol (W7P),
functions as an adaptation laer that makes ever data network look a bit like
/7P to the upper laers b providing unreliable transport of data with two -9%
bit port numbers (origin and destination). All the upper laers view W7P as
one and the same protocol, which has several :technical reali;ations: on top
of other :data bearers: such as &(&, /&&7, etc. <n native !P bearers such as
3P=&, /($& packet%radio service, or PPP on top of a circuit%switched data
connection, W7P is in fact e>actl /7P.
W$1&, an optional laer, provides a public%ke crptograph%based securit
mechanism similar to $1&.
W$P provides transaction support (reliable re2uest?response) adapted to the
wireless world. W$P supports more efectivel than $6P the problem of packet
loss, which occurs commonl in +3 wireless technologies in most radio
conditions, but is misinterpreted b $6P as network congestion.
@inall, one can think of W&P initiall as a compressed version of 0$$P.
$his protocol suite allows a terminal to transmit re2uests that have an 0$$P
or 0$$P& e2uivalent to a WAP gatewaA the gatewa translates re2uests into
plain 0$$P.
Wireless Application #nvironment (WA#)BeditC
$he WA# space deDnes application%speciDc markup languages.
@or WAP version -.E, the primar language of the WA# is Wireless (arkup
1anguage (W(1). !n WAP +.,, the primar markup language is E0$(1 (obile
ProDle.
0istorBeditC
$he WAP @orum dates from -4F4. !t aimed primaril to bring together the
various wireless technologies in a standardised protocol.B-C $he Drst compan
to launch a WAP site was 7utch mobile phone operator $elfort BG in <ctober
-444. $he site was developed as a side pro*ect b 6hristopher Bee and #uan
(c1eod and launched with the debut of the 'okia H--,.
!n +,,+ the WAP @orum was consolidatedBb whomIC (along with man other
forums of the industr) into <pen (obile Alliance (<(AC).B+C
WAP PushBeditC
WAP Push Process
WAP Push was incorporated into the speciDcation to allow WAP content to be
pushed to the mobile handset with minimum user intervention. A WAP Push is
basicall a speciall encoded message which includes a link to a WAP
address.B.C
WAP Push was speciDed on top of WAP 7atagram Protocol (W7P)A as such, it
can be delivered over an W7P%supported bearer, such as 3P=& or &(&.BJC
(ost 3&( networks have a wide range of modiDed processors, but 3P=&
activation from the network is not generall supported, so WAP Push
messages have to be delivered on top of the &(& bearer.
<n receiving a WAP Push, a WAP -.+ (or later) %enabled handset will
automaticall give the user the option to access the WAP content. $his is also
known as WAP Push &! (&ervice !ndication).BJC A variant, known as WAP Push
&1 (&ervice 1oading), directl opens the browser to displa the WAP content,
without user interaction. &ince this behaviour raises securit concerns, some
handsets handle WAP Push &1 messages in the same wa as &!, b providing
user interaction.
$he network entit that processes WAP Pushes and delivers them over an !P
or &(& Bearer is known as a Push Pro> 3atewa (PP3).BJC
WAP +.,BeditC
A re%engineered +., version was released in +,,+. !t uses a cut%down version
of E0$(1 with end%to%end 0$$P, dropping the gatewa and custom protocol
suite used to communicate with it. A WAP gatewa can be used in
con*unction with WAP +.,A however, in this scenario, it is used as a standard
pro> server. $he WAP gatewaKs role would then shift from one of translation
to adding additional information to each re2uest. $his would be conDgured b
the operator and could include telephone numbers, location, billing
information, and handset information.
(obile devices process E0$(1 (obile ProDle (E0$(1 (P), the markup
language deDned in WAP +.,. !t is a subset of E0$(1 and a superset of
E0$(1 Basic. A version of cascading stle sheets (6&&) called WAP 6&& is
supported b E0$(1 (P.
6ommercial statusBeditC
#uropeBeditC
(arketers hped WAP at the time of its introduction,B5C leading users to
e>pect WAP to have the performance of D>ed (non%mobile) !nternet access.
B$ 6ellnet, one of the /L telecoms, ran an advertising campaign depicting a
cartoon WAP user surDng through a 'euromancer%like :information space:.B9C
!n terms of speed, ease of use, appearance and interoperabilit, the realit
fell far short of e>pectations when the Drst handsets became available in
-444.BHCBFC $his led to the wide usage of sardonic phrases such as :Worthless
Application Protocol:,B4C :Wait And Pa:,B-,C and WAPlash.B--C
Between +,,. and +,,J WAP made a stronger resurgence with the
introduction of wireless services (such as Godafone 1iveM, $%(obile $%Nones
and other easil accessible services). <perator revenues were generated b
transfer of 3P=& and /($& data, which is a diferent business model than
that used b the traditional Web sites and !&Ps. According to the (obile 7ata
Association, WAP traOc in the /L doubled from +,,. to +,,J.B-+C
As of +,-., WAP use has largel disappeared. (ost modern handset internet
browsers now support full 0$(1, 6&&, and most of )avascript, and do not
need to use an kind of WAP markup for webpage compatibilit. $he list of
handsets supporting 0$(1 is e>tensive, and includes all Android handsets, all
Blackberr devices, all versions of the iPhone handset, all devices running
Windows Phone, and man 'okia handsets. (ost ma*or companies and
websites have since retired from the use of WAP and it has not been the
mainstream technolog for web on mobile for a number of ears.Bcitation
neededC
AsiaBeditC
/nlike in #urope, WAP has seen huge success in )apan. While the largest
operator '$$ 7o6o(o has famousl disdained WAP in favor of its in%house
sstem i%mode, rival operators L77! (au) and &oftBank (obile (previousl
Godafone )apan) have both successfull deploed WAP technolog. !n
particular, (au)Ks chakuuta?chakumovie (ringtone song?ringtone movie)
services are based on WAP. After being shadowed b the initial success of i%
mode, the two smaller )apanese operators have been gaining market share
from 7o6o(o since &pring +,,-.B-.C
/&ABeditC
$he adoption of WAP in the /& sufered because man cell phone providers
re2uired separate activation and additional fees for data support, and also
because telecommunications companies have sought to limit data access to
onl approved data providers operating under license of the signal carrier.
Bcitation neededC
!n recognition of the problem, the /.&. @ederal 6ommunications 6ommission
(@66) issued an order on .- )ul +,,H which mandated that licensees of the
++%megahert; wide :/pper H,, (0; 6 Block: spectrum will have to
implement a wireless platform which allows customers, device
manufacturers, third%part application developers, and others to use an
device or application of their choice when operating on this particular
licensed network band.B-JCB-5C
&pin%of technologiesBeditC
&pin%of technologies, such as (ultimedia (essaging &ervice (((&), a
combination of WAP and &(&, have further driven the protocol. An enhanced
appreciation of device diversit, supported b the concomitant changes to
WAP content to become more device%speciDc rather aiming at a lowest
common denominator, allowed for more usable and compelling content. As a
result, the adoption rate of WAP technolog is rising.Bcitation neededC
6riticismBeditC
6ommentators have critici;ed several aspects of Wireless (arkup 1anguage
(W(1) and WAP. $echnical criticisms include"
$he idiosncratic W(1 language" W(1 cut users of from the conventional
0$(1 Web, leaving onl native WAP content and Web%to%WAP pro>i%content
available to WAP users. 0owever, others argueBwhoIC that technolog at that
stage would simpl not have been able to give access to anthing but
custom%designed content which was the sole purpose of WAP and its simple,
reduced comple>it interface as the citi;ens of man nations are not
connected to the web at the present time and have to use government
funded and controlled portals to WAP and similar non%comple> services.
/nder%speciDcation of terminal re2uirements" $he earl WAP standards
included man optional features and under%speciDed re2uirements, which
meant that compliant devices would not necessaril interoperate properl.
$his resulted in great variabilit in the actual behavior of phones, principall
because WAP%service implementers and mobile%phone manufacturers did
notBcitation neededC obtain a cop of the standards or the correct hardware
and the standard software modules. As an e>ample, some phone models
would not accept a page more than - Lb in si;eA others would downright
crash. $he user interface of devices was also underspeciDed" as an e>ample,
accesskes (e.g., the abilit to press KJK to access directl the fourth link in a
list) were variousl implemented depending on phone models (sometimes
with the accesske number automaticall displaed b the browser ne>t to
the link, sometimes without it, and sometimes accesskes were not
implemented at all).
6onstrained user interface capabilities" $erminals with small black%and%white
screens and few buttons, like the earl WAP terminals, face diOculties in
presenting a lot of information to their user, which compounded the other
problems" one would have had to be e>tra careful in designing the user
interface on such a resource%constrained device which was the real concept
of WAP.
1ack of good authoring tools" $he problems above might have succumbed in
the face of a W(1 authoring tool that would have allowed content providers
to easil publish content that would interoperate Pawlessl with man
models, adapting the pages presented to the /ser%Agent tpe. 0owever, the
development kits which e>isted did not provide such a general capabilit.
7eveloping for the web was eas" with a te>t editor and a web browser,
anbod could get started, thanks also to the forgiving nature of most
desktop browser rendering engines. B contrast, the stringent re2uirements
of the W(1 speciDcations, the variabilit in terminals, and the demands of
testing on various wireless terminals, along with the lack of widel available
desktop authoring and emulation tools, considerabl lengthened the time
re2uired to complete most pro*ects. As of +,,4, however, with man mobile
devices supporting E0$(1, and programs such as Adobe 3o 1ive and
7reamweaver ofering improved web%authoring tools, it is becoming easier to
create content, accessible b man new devices.
1ack of user agent proDling tools" !t 2uickl became nearl impossible for web
hosts to determine if a re2uest came from a mobile device, or from a larger
more capable device. 'o useful proDling or database of device capabilities
were built into the speciDcations in the unauthori;ed non%compliant products.
Bcitation neededC
<ther criticisms address the wireless carriersK particular implementations of
WAP"
'eglect of content providers" &ome wireless carriers had assumed a :build it
and the will come: strateg, meaning that the would *ust provide the
transport of data as well as the terminals, and then wait for content providers
to publish their services on the !nternet and make their investment in WAP
useful. 0owever, content providers received little help or incentive to go
through the complicated route of development. <thers, notabl in )apan (cf.
below), had a more thorough dialogue with their content%provider communit,
which was then replicated in modern, more successful WAP services such as i%
mode in )apan or the 3aller service in @rance.
1ack of openness" (an wireless carriers sold their WAP services as :open:, in
that the allowed users to reach an service e>pressed in W(1 and published
on the !nternet. 0owever, the also made sure that the Drst page that clients
accessed was their own :wireless portal:, which the controlled ver closel.
&ome carriers also turned of editing or accessing the address bar in the
deviceKs browser. $o facilitate users wanting to go of deck, an address bar on
a form on a page linked of the hard coded home page was provided. !t makes
it easier for carriers to implement Dltering of of deck W(1 sites b /=1s or to
disable the address bar in the future if the carrier decides to switch all users
to a walled garden model. 3iven the diOcult in tping up full 2ualiDed /=1s
on a phone keboard, most users would give up going :of portal: or out of
the walled gardenA b not letting third parties put their own entries on the
operatorsK wireless portal, someBwhoIC contend that operators cut
themselves of from a valuable opportunit. <n the other hand, some
operatorsBwhichIC argue that their customers would have wanted them to
manage the e>perience and, on such a constrained device, avoid giving
access to too man services.Bcitation neededC
Protocol design lessons from WAPBeditC
$he original WAP model provided a simple platform for access to web%like
W(1 services and e%mail using mobile phones in #urope and the &# Asian
regions. As of +,,4 it continues with a considerable user base. $he later
versions of WAP, primaril targeting the /nited &tates market, were
designedBb whomIC for a diferent re2uirement % to enable full web E0$(1
access using mobile devices with a higher speciDcation and cost, and with a
higher degree of software comple>it.
6onsiderable discussion has addressed the 2uestion whether the WAP
protocol design was appropriate. &omeBwhoIC have suggested that the
bandwidth%sparing simple interface of 3opher would be a better match for
mobile phones and Personal digital assistants (P7As).B-9C
$he initial design of WAP speciDcall aimed at protocol independence across a
range of diferent protocols (&(&, !P over PPP over a circuit switched bearer,
!P over 3P=&, etc.). $his has led to a protocol considerabl more comple>
than an approach directl over !P might have caused.
(ost controversial, especiall for man from the !P side, was the design of
WAP over !P. WAPKs transmission laer protocol, W$P, uses its own
retransmission mechanisms over /7P to attempt to solve the problem of the
inade2uac of $6P over high%packet%loss networks.Bcitation neededC
WAP inPuence on modern web sitesBeditC
$he original WAP model served pages in W(1. W(1 was based on the
concept of documents known as QdecksR, with data in each deck structured
into one or more QcardsR (pages) S each of which represents a single
interaction with the user. With the advent of responsive web design and
mobile Drst approaches the challenges of resi;ing and adapting content have
led to the concept of decks and cards to be reccled. 6ards are served in
rows and columns to match the devices capabilities and diferent decks can
be delivered to the device based on the network, device and media support
capabilities.