keitai-l@appelsiini.net writes:
>When you work with global brand name clients that want to create stand-out
>wireless sites, the idea that you would not use a design feature because
>it
>is not part of the "standard" is absurd.
weeeelllll yes - but...
If you have a decent Mac you can load it up with MacOS, Windows and
Redhat Linux (entirely possible) and then test pretty much every browser
out there and see how your site looks. So anything non-standard can be
tested..... (there are some browsers that this would not cover of course)
It ain't like that with imode phones. Testing a site that uses
non-standard tags on every imode phone would be an exepnsive nightmare.
And because the browser is in firmware, the browser could change within
the same model of phone - so there is no guarantee that what would work on
one phone would work on another of the identical model. So even header
sniffing would not work....
I do not think a "browser war" with handsets being sold on the basis of
the non-standard tags they support (a possible scenario) would be good for
imode. So I sincerely hope that the manufacturers are NOT tempted to add
such support until there is a standard in place.
>Lets update of FAQs to
>include the real world of i-mode capabilities.
No - let's not. Let's not encourage chaos. There is no reason for the
FAQ's to lie - but there is no reason for them to have this in. One reason
Imode works is because Docomo have been sensible about standards. I have a
direct interest in imode continuing to work - and work well - We MAKE the
real world by what we do.
>You can tailor content to display
>properly in full-featured i-mode browsers and less-capable ones, just like
>you can do full-graphics and "light" desktop versions of your site.
"Full featured" to a standard is fine. We already do that. If you do not
mean "to a standard" - precisely what definition of "full featured" do you
have in mind?
>
Nick
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Dec 8 10:20:02 2000