At 19:24 2001-01-31, you wrote:
[...]
>XML, on which WML is based, is an open standard too. It is a good choice for
>the
>future as it is far more extendable and far more structured. cHTML is more
>easier
>to take up for the "do-it-at-home" site builder, but for a programmer it is
>just
>as easy to do WML as it is to to cHTML.
It is as easy to have opionons on WAP ./. i-mode as Mac/Linux ./. Windows.
I have my view clear, and it is that the future likes in making the mobile
Internet as much Internet as possible. In that respect the i-mode way is
clearly closer to the target than WAP. But still, it is not enough. It can
be a lot better.
But why eaven discuss WML and other parts of WAP <= 1.2, when it is already
clear that it is history? And why do people continue to implement WAP
solutions when the future convergence is already decided?
WAP-NG will, as many of you know, be based on Internet standards from W3C
and IETF, most notably XHTML Basic and http 1.1 over tcp/ip. WAP-NG will be
specfied this summer, but even before that it will be used in DoCoMo's FOMA
service (with full compatibility with i-mode (branding is a bit unclear here)).
The only reason for even thinking about using WAP/WML, as I see it, is that
there are no handsets available for western markets with XHTML Basic browsers.
Current predictions and promises say that we will have at least three such
handsets for delivery to users in late September this year.
Until then we can not do anything else than to wait...
/g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://xped.io | gustaf_at_xpedio.com | t +46 8 674 50 47 | m +46 70 916 4747
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Feb 2 01:47:27 2001