Curt Sampson wrote:
> Yup. That's the headline at the register, and the article,
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/20782.html
>
> continues in that vein:
>
> Undeterred by the failure of WAP in Europe - and as a brand it's
> so poorly regarded that it appears to have sunk in transit
> across the Atlantic
<snip>
WAP is not meant to be a brand!
> The individual specs add up to new standards
> for XHTML, style sheets, for multimedia delivery via WAP services,
> push content and plenty more besides.
<snip>
Actually the 'new standard' for XHTML is XHTML Basic, which is a
recommendation of the W3C not the WAP Forum. WAP CSS is a slimmed-down
CSS2 but with a few horrible (but not too important) extensions.
Similarly there are 'profiles' of IP and TCP which specify how WAP
implementors should use these in a way that is optimal for wireless use.
(They make certain features mandatory that in general are optional.)
This is how WAP should have been done in the first place - adopting
Internet and web standards and specifying how to use them optimally in
the wireless environment.
Oh, and UAProf (user agent profiling) should be very useful, though it
looks quite challenging to implement. This is a standard way to tell
servers about the capabilities and preferences of the device and user
that are making a request. Once this is in place, you can say goodbye
to databases of screen size, maximum page size, and so on.
Of course, the W* effect has not been eradicated - WML, WDP, WSP, etc
are all in there still.
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Aug 3 12:49:34 2001