Nick May wrote:
-8><---
How do other list users feel about a search engine stating as policy that
its "preferred method" to identify sites is the meta tag?
-8><---
What I like about i-mode is DoCoMo has developed a very clear set of HTML
tags. There is none of the Microsoft, Netscape one-upmanship that has
plagued the fixed device space. Would you really want to start adding
propriety (non-DoCoMo anyway) tags to this?
As much as I love Google, I don't think it should be responsible for
defining a meta tag for i-mode content - that's DoCoMo's job although it has
done this poorly with <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html ;
charset=SHIFT_JIS">.
If Google was to develop their own meta tag the onus would then be on them
to promote to the myriad of i-mode developers out there - most of whom are
not on this list - to stop using what DoCoMo has in the i-mode HTML specs
above, something I can't see happening very easily.
JAPON.NET wrote:
-8><---
- I would probably look for pages that have the
ACCESSKEY or TEL: tags.
- And probably, as a quick trick, anything over 5K could be discarded from
the start.
-8><---
I have built apps that detect device cache and deliver content accordingly.
Maybe you would want to restrict it to the upper limit of 10k?
ACCESSKEY, TEL and emoji are really the only things that distinguish an
i-mode site from HTML right now. If you detect all of these you should catch
most i-mode pages. Not a perfect system but better than adding propriety
tags that make it more imperfect.
Kyle
X-9 DESIGN LAB
http://www.X-9.com
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu Feb 8 06:31:34 2001