Kyle Barrow wrote:
> > I disagree. Natsuno from DoCoMo and many others spell out quite clearly
> > their desire to follow global standards, not make them, for the obvious
> > benefits to all. The decision to go with cHTML over WAP/WML was for that
> > reason, not the desire to do something proprietary. The benefits of a
> > proprietary system pale in comparison to the benefits of using open
> > internet standards like HTML and HTTP.
> > DoCoMo knew this and explicitly acted on such knowledge.
>
> Way back in February 1998, Access - whose microbrowser is found in almost
> every i-mode phone - submitted the Compact HTML recommendation to the W3C
> (http://www.w3.org/Submission/1998/04/). Neither CHTML or HDML are global
> standards but submissions that are yet to be adopted by the W3C
The W3C is not in the habit of 'adopting' specifications drawn up by
individual companies as standards (or rather, recommendations). It forms
committees to draw up these recommendations, normally consisting of
representatives of the member companies and organisations that have an
interest in the area. As far as I can see, neither Access nor Unwired
Planet (as was) were interested in doing this at the time they made their
submissions.
> although clearly the W3C are moving towards an XHTML standard for
> wireless devices that will look something like CHTML.
The W3C has not fallen into the trap of designing for very specific
devices; rather, it has defined a 'basic' subset of XHTML that should be
suitable for many embedded devices, with the cooperation of both Access
and Openwave (the latest name for Phone.com).
> Enter DoCoMo who supported the original CHTML submission yet when I
> talked to them to confirm i-mode uses CHTML where adamant it does not.
Compact HTML as described in the submission is probably what the Access
browser supported at one time, pre-release. Since nothing has come of
that submission, I suppose DoCoMo wishes to disassociate itself from
the name. Similarly, the WAP Forum uses the name WML for something
that looks remarkably similar to HDML.
<snip>
> i-mode uses HTML which is a W3C standard as WML uses XML which is
> also a W3C standard but both have propriety extensions so neither can
> claim the high ground.
The W3C has recommended several versions and variants of HTML, which
are specific markup languages. Each version of i-mode appears to use
a markup language that mixes and matches parts of several
recommendations, specifies a different document character set, and
adds a small number of elements. Decisions about the definition of
new versions appears to be made by DoCoMo together with a closed
group of browser developers. They do not release a DTD.
XML, on the other hand, is not a specific markup language; it is, if
I understand it correctly, a restricted subset of SGML that is much
easier to process than the whole lot. Each version of WML is a
specific markup language defined within those restrictions.
Decisions about the definition of new versions are made by the WAP
Forum, which is nominally open but does require substantial member-
ship fees. Each version has a DTD.
In theory, then, WML is somewhat less proprietary than 'i-mode HTML'...
> In the end it is not standards but usage that maters as anyone who has
> developed for IE and Netscape knows.
...but in practice there does seem to be a lot of variation in actual
implementations of WML and associated 'specifications', which I
understand to be less the case with i-mode (perhaps an advantage of the
small number of different browsers).
--
I do not speak for Roundpoint; any opinions I express are my own.
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu Feb 1 06:21:13 2001