Jose Manrique Lopez de la Fuente
jsmanrique at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 16:18:31 CEST 2008
2008/4/7, Tilman Baumann <tilman at baumann.name>:
> Mobile versions for certain pages are a reasonable choice. But nothing you
> can depend on.
> The Web[tm] just is not mobile. At least not yet.
The Web shouldn't be mobile neither desktop... it should be "ubiquos"
> This is the reason why there is no alternative to a full blown working
Who wants an alternative to full blown working browser? Browsers
should describe their capabilities somehow, that's all.
> And there is a clear trend for mobile sites. They are not some WAP crap
> with no layout at all but full html with limited design. Like no 3 column
> layout, default fonts maybe smaller pictures and so on.
> This is technology that scales.
> That's just design optimized for mobile usage based on current technology.
> Nothing wrong with that. In fact it is a good idea.
> But changing the web on the browser side (too much) is plain stupid.
Yes, it should be the servers what adapt the content to the context
the request has been made. For example:
- If I have a my locale set to spanish, I expect a spanish version of the site
> So i think it is just futile do argument which feature a mobile browser
> should support and which not. (besides some minor .css aadjustments to
> reflect the limited screen estate)
> It just needs to be complete. Crippling pages can only be optional. There
> will always be a page that just needs to be rendered as it was intended.
> There is for example nothing wrong with a mobile site that uses AJAX.
> And a stupid complex site which does not work well on mobile devices is
> probably more defect after converting it so some limited mobile rendering as
> it would be with just leaving it as it is.
Right, webkit is complete, the idea is 'tell somewhere' what features
J. Manrique López de la Fuente
More information about the community