Hi,
> >Only one company is backing cHTML (NTT DoCoMo) - so it is prorietary
> The quoted lines above are from posting from a wap mailinglist.
> One thing which caught my eye is the claim that cHTML was
> proprietary.
>
> Ok my native language is not english but I understand the
> word proprietary bit different than "only one company
> backing something".
I wasn't sure myself, so I looked it up on the web. The PC
Webopedia says this about 'proprietary':
-------------------------- snip --------------------------
Privately owned and controlled. In the computer industry,
proprietary is the opposite of open. A proprietary design or
technique is one that is owned by a company. It also implies
that the company has not divulged specifications that would
allow other companies to duplicate the product.
Increasingly, proprietary architectures are seen as a
disadvantage. Consumers prefer open and standardized
architectures, which allow them to mix and match products
from different manufacturers.
http://www.pcwebopaedia.com/TERM/p/proprietary.html
-------------------------- snap --------------------------
> I understand that if cHTML was proprietary by NTT DoCoMo no
> one else was alloved to use cHTML (well atleast without
> licencec fees). cHTML is free for everyone to use.
Is that really true? Developers can write pages in chtml
and publish them freely (and chtml was submitted to the
W3C), that's right.
But what about carriers? Can a company start being a docomo/
i-mode competitor and offer imode services without paying
license fee or having an agreement with Docomo? Is the
network/gateway structure of i-mode open and usable by
everybody? Can a company simply duplicate i-mode?
I think in that sense it's meant when people say chtml is
proprietary (although they mean i-mode and not the markup
language itself).
Cheers,
Andrea
--
Andrea Hoffmann -- Editor in Chief -- hoffmann@westcyber.com
Japane Mobile Information - http://westcyber.editthispage.com
Received on Sat Jul 8 22:09:14 2000