At 06:32 2001-02-08, you wrote:
>Nick May wrote:
>-8><---------------
>But if google were to state something like "if your site has the chtml
>meta tag we will definitely regard it as chtml - if it does not we will
>TRY and work it out, we will do our best but we can make no guarantees"
>then IMHO that would be "a good thing". People who do not use the tag
>would still (mostly) get pulled in - people who did use it could
>"guarantee" to get pulled in (as it were...)
>-8><---------------
>
>But if you use a CHTML meta tag, what if Google comes across a site actually
>built for CHTML and some future CHTML (pixo) device? CHTML specs support
>style sheets, tables, frames and JPEG images which is why i-mode <loud>is
>not</loud> CHTML.
Was a "not" missing somewhere? Anyway, CHTML does _not_ support style
sheets, frames and JPEG images. But i-mode 1.0 and 2.0 differs in other
areas from CHTML. I am not the expert, but things like tel: and istyle for
textinput types are some of the ones I come to think of.
/g
>Kyle
>
>X-9 DESIGN LAB
>http://www.X-9.com
>
>
>
>[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thu Feb 8 17:39:03 2001