Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for mobile devices?

Expand Messages
  • russellbeattie
    I ve been trying to figure out my own thoughts on this topic, as there doesn t seem to be a common standard yet that I can see. There were several questions in
    Message 1 of 25 , Oct 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been trying to figure out my own thoughts on this topic, as there
      doesn't seem to be a common standard yet that I can see.

      There were several questions in my mind:

      1) What type of content-type to return for mobiles?
      2) Do I really need the <?xml?> declaration?
      3) What's the deal with the doctype and namespace?
      4) What's the best format to use: XHTML-MP, XHTML-Basic, or "plain" HTML

      No one seems to have a handle on this yet, even within the same
      company. For example, if you go to Google's three main mobile sites:
      their home page, personalized home page and reader apps, they all
      return various combinations of the above. Yahoo! and AOL don't seem to
      be much better, and Microsoft just seems to optimize everything for
      their smart phones.

      Though I think some sort of mobile content adaption is going to be
      needed for the forseeable future, but it'd be nice not to find common
      ground for the underlying markup at least, no? Below is what I
      eventually decided on, and how I came to my decision:

      First, I started with XHTML-MP spec:

      http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/public_documents/bac/MAE/Permanent_documents/OMA-XHTMLMP-V1_2-20041222-D.zip

      And in it I found this quote:

      > Note that there is no requirement that XHTML Mobile Profile
      documents be given the media type "application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml"; the
      media type "text/html" may be used instead.

      If browser makers and manufacturers stick to that - and there's no
      reason to think they wouldn't, considering that most of the content
      out there is in HTML anyways, then delivering your mobile content as
      text/html is both a reasonable and valid thing to do.

      Question: Does anyone know of a microbrowser that supports XHTML-MP
      but barfs if the content-type in the header says text/html?

      Next, I wondered about the <?xml?> declaration - is that needed? My
      original understanding that because XHTML is XML, then it needed to
      have the declaration in order to be valid. But there's a million
      variations out there... what exactly are the "rules"? I looked up the
      XHTML spec,

      http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_1

      and found this:

      > An XML declaration is not required in all XML documents; however
      XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations
      in all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the
      character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or
      UTF-16

      Then later the spec contradicts this statement by saying if you are
      worried about backwards compatibility, then leave the xml declaration
      out and use the meta tag for character encoding. To me that means
      don't worry about it.

      Question: Does anyone know of a microbrowser that will barf if an xml
      declaration is missing, or vice versa?

      That leaves the final questions about the format and doctype. I think
      that using "plain", old, non-validating HTML 4 would be a bad idea -
      microbrowsers have been made, I think, to assume that they would be
      consuming XHTML. Even if they allow regular HTML or aren't strict, I
      think observing Postel's Law (be conservative in what you do; be
      liberal in which you accept from others) is probably the best idea, so
      I'll want to aim for validating XHTML.

      Now, at one point I had the thought of just sticking with XHTML Basic,
      as -MP is just a slightly extended version of it for i-mode, but
      decided that if I am going to make pages for phones, might as well
      stick with XHTML-MP, hopefully reducing any more variables.

      Now, in this case both the XHTML and XHTML-MP specs say that both the
      DocType and the namespace in the html element are required. Good to
      know - I always added them before, but knowing they're not optional is
      better.

      Okay, so in summary, I'm delivering my content as XHTML-MP, with the
      content-type of text/html making sure I have the proper doctype and
      xml namespace in the html tag. This should be acceptable by both
      normal web browsers, as well as any microbrowser that bothers to pay
      attention to the specs.

      Any thoughts?

      -Russ





      --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Kindler" <kindlerm@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Luca,
      >
      > well, I do not really see the reason for this. XHTML MP is just a
      variant of
      > the "normal" XHTML which is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 with its
      > syntax rules a bit more strict than HTML.
      > If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine (fewer
      errors
      > experienced by the user), but as author I should strive to create
      correct
      > code and it is not so hard to do. The Doctype should also be part of the
      > HTML document. Validation ensures that the document is valid, but is not
      > strictly necessary.
      >
      > I would at most add a note that most microbrowsers also support some
      form of
      > HTML.
      >
      > Martin
      >
      >
      > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
      > Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
      > Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
      > Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 18:46
      > An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      > Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up
      for mobile
      > devices?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Any reaction to this? may I assume it's good enough?
      >
      > Luca
      >
      > Luca Passani wrote:
      >
      > >People, as you know, XHTML MP is the mark-up which has the best chance
      > >of displaying correctly on mobile devices.
      > >For this reason, we have this entry in GAP:
      > >
      > >http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
      > it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
      > >
      > >Having said this, I wonder if this is not excessively strict for
      > >newbies. After all, plain HTML will work fine on a lot of devices
      by now.
      > >For this reason, I added the following note to the practice:
      > >---------------------------------
      > >*Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is
      elevated
      > ><http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline>
      > it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
      > >Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type
      |text/html|)
      > >reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive
      > >and negative implications for developers.
      > >On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be
      slightly
      > >diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web
      content to
      > >mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd. This can affect the
      > >rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
      > >Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
      > >errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is rendered
      > >to the end user.
      > >On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to
      deal
      > >with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
      > >validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
      > >manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
      > >A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
      > >content with all web browsers.
      > >---------------------------------
      > >Questions for you:
      > >- Do you agree with the note?
      > >- can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
      > >
      > >Thanks
      > >
      > >Luca
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Luca Passani
      Thanks, I accepted the corrections. The second one has become: Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those errors would negatively
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, I accepted the corrections. The second one has become:

        "Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected,
        yet those errors would negatively impact the page rendering speed,
        thus reducing the perceived responsiveness of the system."

        as far as WML goes, GAP pays tribute to it in the beginning of the page
        and then moves on to deal with XHTML

        Luca


        Marten van Wezel wrote:

        >Sorry for the slow response then
        >
        >
        >
        >>>*Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is elevated
        >>><http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
        >>>Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type |text/html|)
        >>>reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive
        >>>and negative implications for developers.
        >>>On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be slightly
        >>>diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web content to
        >>>mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd.
        >>>
        >>>
        >I'd make this line:
        >
        >.. be slightly reduced. Additionally, some microbrowsers apply
        >heuristics to adapt web content to the mobile environment whenever they
        >encounter the HTML content type.
        >say 'reduced'.
        >
        >
        >
        >>>This can affect the
        >>>rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
        >>>Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
        >>>errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is rendered
        >>>to the end user.
        >>>
        >>>
        >
        >Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
        >errors would negatively impact the page rendering speed.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >>>On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to deal
        >>>with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
        >>>validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
        >>>manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
        >>>A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
        >>>content with all web browsers.
        >>>
        >>>
        >
        >
        >I agree with the contents, perhaps a link to the firefox plugins (WAP
        >viewer, useragent switcher) or a mention that opera renders WML just
        >fine?
        >
        >-M
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >>>---------------------------------
        >>>Questions for you:
        >>>- Do you agree with the note?
        >>>- can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
        >>>
        >>>Thanks
        >>>
        >>>Luca
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >>As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
        >>Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.
        >>Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
      • Luca Passani
        ... This kind of thinking has been popular with a whole share of developers who would like to see standards prevail, in spite of the increased discipline
        Message 3 of 25 , Nov 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine
          > (fewer errors experienced by the user), but as author
          > I should strive to create correct
          > code and it is not so hard to do.


          This kind of thinking has been popular with a whole share of developers
          who would like to see standards prevail, in spite of the increased
          discipline imposed on development and developers.

          On the other hand, i-mode (and the big web itself!!!) is the proof that
          simplicity, error-resiliance and the ability to preview content in a
          plain web-browser will boost the amount of content available for the new
          platform.

          Personally, I sympathize for the latter viewpoint, since, at the end of
          the day, we all depend on someone to pay our salaries at the end of the
          month and the best solution is the one that makes the most money for our
          companies in the end.

          For GAP, this means that the question is "does a large enough size of
          existing microbrowsers handle tag-soup decently?". If the answer is yes,
          then GAP should mention that HTML may be a good enough mark-up for a
          whole share of minimally-technical mobile content authors.
          If the answer is no, then GAP should say "Sorry, HTML may work here and
          there, but it will not bring your mobile apps far enough".

          Tentatively, I endorsed the first scenario in GAP (HTML may be good
          enough) and turned to this forum for confirmation/refutal. Your
          viewpoint is noted.

          Thanks

          Luca

          Martin Kindler wrote:

          >Luca,
          >
          >well, I do not really see the reason for this. XHTML MP is just a variant of
          >the "normal" XHTML which is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 with its
          >syntax rules a bit more strict than HTML.
          >If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine (fewer errors
          >experienced by the user), but as author I should strive to create correct
          >code and it is not so hard to do. The Doctype should also be part of the
          >HTML document. Validation ensures that the document is valid, but is not
          >strictly necessary.
          >
          >I would at most add a note that most microbrowsers also support some form of
          >HTML.
          >
          >Martin
          >
          >
          >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
          >Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
          >Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
          >Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 18:46
          >An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
          >Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for mobile
          >devices?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Any reaction to this? may I assume it's good enough?
          >
          >Luca
          >
          >Luca Passani wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >>People, as you know, XHTML MP is the mark-up which has the best chance
          >>of displaying correctly on mobile devices.
          >>For this reason, we have this entry in GAP:
          >>
          >>http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
          >>
          >>
          >it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
          >
          >
          >>Having said this, I wonder if this is not excessively strict for
          >>newbies. After all, plain HTML will work fine on a lot of devices by now.
          >>For this reason, I added the following note to the practice:
          >>---------------------------------
          >>*Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is elevated
          >><http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline>
          >>
          >>
          >it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
          >
          >
          >>Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type |text/html|)
          >>reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive
          >>and negative implications for developers.
          >>On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be slightly
          >>diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web content to
          >>mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd. This can affect the
          >>rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
          >>Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
          >>errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is rendered
          >>to the end user.
          >>On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to deal
          >>with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
          >>validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
          >>manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
          >>A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
          >>content with all web browsers.
          >>---------------------------------
          >>Questions for you:
          >>- Do you agree with the note?
          >>- can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
          >>
          >>Thanks
          >>
          >>Luca
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Luca Passani
          Guys, for those who have not noticed, this guy is Russell Beattie. He had a very popular mobile- and internet-related blog which he inexplicably decided to
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Guys, for those who have not noticed, this guy is Russell Beattie. He
            had a very popular mobile- and internet-related blog which he
            inexplicably decided to shut down a few months back.

            http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/

            Welcome to WMLProgramming, Russ.

            Specifically to your questions/proposal, I don't think that advocating
            some kind of MIME-soup is the best way to go. And yes, there are devices
            that will barf on the HTML MIME-type (off the top of my head,
            SonyEricsson T610/T616, T68i, but there are probably more, a bunch of
            the motorolas possibly also the razor, some of the Nokia series 40 too),
            not to mention the fact that serving XHTML MP with the HTML mime type
            may screw CSS and tables on many Nokia Series 60.

            The fact that a microbrowser does not barf on missing XML prologs is
            more due to the fact that also microbrowsers are more and more able to
            handle tag-soup than the fact they try to support the standard.

            Anyway, I will say no more and seat by the side to observe the
            discussion that your posting will certainly bring about.

            Luca

            russellbeattie wrote:

            >I've been trying to figure out my own thoughts on this topic, as there
            >doesn't seem to be a common standard yet that I can see.
            >
            >There were several questions in my mind:
            >
            >1) What type of content-type to return for mobiles?
            >2) Do I really need the <?xml?> declaration?
            >3) What's the deal with the doctype and namespace?
            >4) What's the best format to use: XHTML-MP, XHTML-Basic, or "plain" HTML
            >
            >No one seems to have a handle on this yet, even within the same
            >company. For example, if you go to Google's three main mobile sites:
            >their home page, personalized home page and reader apps, they all
            >return various combinations of the above. Yahoo! and AOL don't seem to
            >be much better, and Microsoft just seems to optimize everything for
            >their smart phones.
            >
            >Though I think some sort of mobile content adaption is going to be
            >needed for the forseeable future, but it'd be nice not to find common
            >ground for the underlying markup at least, no? Below is what I
            >eventually decided on, and how I came to my decision:
            >
            >First, I started with XHTML-MP spec:
            >
            >http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/public_documents/bac/MAE/Permanent_documents/OMA-XHTMLMP-V1_2-20041222-D.zip
            >
            >And in it I found this quote:
            >
            >
            >
            >>Note that there is no requirement that XHTML Mobile Profile
            >>
            >>
            >documents be given the media type "application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml"; the
            >media type "text/html" may be used instead.
            >
            >If browser makers and manufacturers stick to that - and there's no
            >reason to think they wouldn't, considering that most of the content
            >out there is in HTML anyways, then delivering your mobile content as
            >text/html is both a reasonable and valid thing to do.
            >
            >Question: Does anyone know of a microbrowser that supports XHTML-MP
            >but barfs if the content-type in the header says text/html?
            >
            >Next, I wondered about the <?xml?> declaration - is that needed? My
            >original understanding that because XHTML is XML, then it needed to
            >have the declaration in order to be valid. But there's a million
            >variations out there... what exactly are the "rules"? I looked up the
            >XHTML spec,
            >
            >http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_1
            >
            >and found this:
            >
            >
            >
            >>An XML declaration is not required in all XML documents; however
            >>
            >>
            >XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations
            >in all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the
            >character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or
            >UTF-16
            >
            >Then later the spec contradicts this statement by saying if you are
            >worried about backwards compatibility, then leave the xml declaration
            >out and use the meta tag for character encoding. To me that means
            >don't worry about it.
            >
            >Question: Does anyone know of a microbrowser that will barf if an xml
            >declaration is missing, or vice versa?
            >
            >That leaves the final questions about the format and doctype. I think
            >that using "plain", old, non-validating HTML 4 would be a bad idea -
            >microbrowsers have been made, I think, to assume that they would be
            >consuming XHTML. Even if they allow regular HTML or aren't strict, I
            >think observing Postel's Law (be conservative in what you do; be
            >liberal in which you accept from others) is probably the best idea, so
            >I'll want to aim for validating XHTML.
            >
            >Now, at one point I had the thought of just sticking with XHTML Basic,
            >as -MP is just a slightly extended version of it for i-mode, but
            >decided that if I am going to make pages for phones, might as well
            >stick with XHTML-MP, hopefully reducing any more variables.
            >
            >Now, in this case both the XHTML and XHTML-MP specs say that both the
            >DocType and the namespace in the html element are required. Good to
            >know - I always added them before, but knowing they're not optional is
            >better.
            >
            >Okay, so in summary, I'm delivering my content as XHTML-MP, with the
            >content-type of text/html making sure I have the proper doctype and
            >xml namespace in the html tag. This should be acceptable by both
            >normal web browsers, as well as any microbrowser that bothers to pay
            >attention to the specs.
            >
            >Any thoughts?
            >
            >-Russ
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >--- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Kindler" <kindlerm@...>
            >wrote:
            >
            >
            >>Luca,
            >>
            >>well, I do not really see the reason for this. XHTML MP is just a
            >>
            >>
            >variant of
            >
            >
            >>the "normal" XHTML which is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 with its
            >>syntax rules a bit more strict than HTML.
            >>If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine (fewer
            >>
            >>
            >errors
            >
            >
            >>experienced by the user), but as author I should strive to create
            >>
            >>
            >correct
            >
            >
            >>code and it is not so hard to do. The Doctype should also be part of the
            >>HTML document. Validation ensures that the document is valid, but is not
            >>strictly necessary.
            >>
            >>I would at most add a note that most microbrowsers also support some
            >>
            >>
            >form of
            >
            >
            >>HTML.
            >>
            >>Martin
            >>
            >>
            >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
            >>Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
            >>
            >>
            >[mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
            >
            >
            >>Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
            >>Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 18:46
            >>An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
            >>Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up
            >>
            >>
            >for mobile
            >
            >
            >>devices?
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>Any reaction to this? may I assume it's good enough?
            >>
            >>Luca
            >>
            >>Luca Passani wrote:
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>People, as you know, XHTML MP is the mark-up which has the best chance
            >>>of displaying correctly on mobile devices.
            >>>For this reason, we have this entry in GAP:
            >>>
            >>>http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
            >>
            >>
            >>>Having said this, I wonder if this is not excessively strict for
            >>>newbies. After all, plain HTML will work fine on a lot of devices
            >>>
            >>>
            >by now.
            >
            >
            >>>For this reason, I added the following note to the practice:
            >>>---------------------------------
            >>>*Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is
            >>>
            >>>
            >elevated
            >
            >
            >>><http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
            >>
            >>
            >>>Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type
            >>>
            >>>
            >|text/html|)
            >
            >
            >>>reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive
            >>>and negative implications for developers.
            >>>On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be
            >>>
            >>>
            >slightly
            >
            >
            >>>diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web
            >>>
            >>>
            >content to
            >
            >
            >>>mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd. This can affect the
            >>>rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
            >>>Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
            >>>errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is rendered
            >>>to the end user.
            >>>On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to
            >>>
            >>>
            >deal
            >
            >
            >>>with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
            >>>validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
            >>>manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
            >>>A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
            >>>content with all web browsers.
            >>>---------------------------------
            >>>Questions for you:
            >>>- Do you agree with the note?
            >>>- can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
            >>>
            >>>Thanks
            >>>
            >>>Luca
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >>
            >>
            >>
          • Martin Kindler
            Luca, I feel a bit misinterpreted. I found much of my feelings well formulated in the posting by Russ this morning. In my opinion GAP should advocate the
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Luca,

              I feel a bit misinterpreted. I found much of my feelings well formulated in
              the posting by Russ this morning.
              In my opinion GAP should advocate the "correct" way and mention that most
              microbrowsers will be accepting other things as well.
              Erroneous pages will be written by many people (including me) and it is good
              that browsers will render (most of) them in an acceptable way.
              This is just normal entropy.

              It is not so simple to say HTML is accepted also. There are a lot of
              variants of HTML, all well defined, and most browsers also accept pages
              which are invalid HTML version x.

              So, I would say, use (valid) XHTML MP for mobile phones. Whether to use
              "application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml" or "text/html* as MIME type I'ld like to
              hear some experiences (I typically use "text/html"). Additionally I would
              mention that most browsers will accept (partly) invalid documents.

              Martin


              -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
              Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
              Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
              Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. November 2006 10:14
              An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
              Betreff: Re: AW: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for
              mobile devices?



              > If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine
              > (fewer errors experienced by the user), but as author
              > I should strive to create correct
              > code and it is not so hard to do.

              This kind of thinking has been popular with a whole share of developers
              who would like to see standards prevail, in spite of the increased
              discipline imposed on development and developers.

              On the other hand, i-mode (and the big web itself!!!) is the proof that
              simplicity, error-resiliance and the ability to preview content in a
              plain web-browser will boost the amount of content available for the new
              platform.

              Personally, I sympathize for the latter viewpoint, since, at the end of
              the day, we all depend on someone to pay our salaries at the end of the
              month and the best solution is the one that makes the most money for our
              companies in the end.

              For GAP, this means that the question is "does a large enough size of
              existing microbrowsers handle tag-soup decently?". If the answer is yes,
              then GAP should mention that HTML may be a good enough mark-up for a
              whole share of minimally-technical mobile content authors.
              If the answer is no, then GAP should say "Sorry, HTML may work here and
              there, but it will not bring your mobile apps far enough".

              Tentatively, I endorsed the first scenario in GAP (HTML may be good
              enough) and turned to this forum for confirmation/refutal. Your
              viewpoint is noted.

              Thanks

              Luca

              Martin Kindler wrote:

              >Luca,
              >
              >well, I do not really see the reason for this. XHTML MP is just a variant
              of
              >the "normal" XHTML which is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 with its
              >syntax rules a bit more strict than HTML.
              >If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine (fewer errors
              >experienced by the user), but as author I should strive to create correct
              >code and it is not so hard to do. The Doctype should also be part of the
              >HTML document. Validation ensures that the document is valid, but is not
              >strictly necessary.
              >
              >I would at most add a note that most microbrowsers also support some form
              of
              >HTML.
              >
              >Martin
              >
              >
              >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
              >Von: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@
              <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
              >Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
              >Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 18:46
              >An: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com
              >Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for
              mobile
              >devices?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Any reaction to this? may I assume it's good enough?
              >
              >Luca
              >
              >Luca Passani wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >>People, as you know, XHTML MP is the mark-up which has the best chance
              >>of displaying correctly on mobile devices.
              >>For this reason, we have this entry in GAP:
              >>
              >>http://www.passani <http://www.passani
              <http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP> it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
              >>
              >>
              >it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
              >
              >
              >>Having said this, I wonder if this is not excessively strict for
              >>newbies. After all, plain HTML will work fine on a lot of devices by now.
              >>For this reason, I added the following note to the practice:
              >>---------------------------------
              >>*Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is elevated
              >><http://www.passani <http://www.passani
              <http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline> it/gap/#elevbaseline>
              >>
              >>
              >it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
              >
              >
              >>Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type |text/html|)
              >>reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive
              >>and negative implications for developers.
              >>On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be slightly
              >>diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web content to
              >>mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd. This can affect the
              >>rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
              >>Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
              >>errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is rendered
              >>to the end user.
              >>On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to deal
              >>with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
              >>validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
              >>manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
              >>A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
              >>content with all web browsers.
              >>---------------------------------
              >>Questions for you:
              >>- Do you agree with the note?
              >>- can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
              >>
              >>Thanks
              >>
              >>Luca
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Luca Passani
              Oooops, I had overseen this message. ... most ... mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me correct is what works, and not what would work if we
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Oooops, I had overseen this message.

                > In my opinion GAP should advocate the "correct" way and mention that
                most
                > microbrowsers will be accepting other things as well.

                mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.

                Luca

                Martin Kindler wrote:

                >Luca,
                >
                >I feel a bit misinterpreted. I found much of my feelings well formulated in
                >the posting by Russ this morning.
                >In my opinion GAP should advocate the "correct" way and mention that most
                >microbrowsers will be accepting other things as well.
                >Erroneous pages will be written by many people (including me) and it is good
                >that browsers will render (most of) them in an acceptable way.
                >This is just normal entropy.
                >
                >It is not so simple to say HTML is accepted also. There are a lot of
                >variants of HTML, all well defined, and most browsers also accept pages
                >which are invalid HTML version x.
                >
                >So, I would say, use (valid) XHTML MP for mobile phones. Whether to use
                >"application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml" or "text/html* as MIME type I'ld like to
                >hear some experiences (I typically use "text/html"). Additionally I would
                >mention that most browsers will accept (partly) invalid documents.
                >
                >Martin
                >
                >
                >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                >Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
                >Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. November 2006 10:14
                >An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                >Betreff: Re: AW: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for
                >mobile devices?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >>If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine
                >>(fewer errors experienced by the user), but as author
                >>I should strive to create correct
                >>code and it is not so hard to do.
                >>
                >>
                >
                >This kind of thinking has been popular with a whole share of developers
                >who would like to see standards prevail, in spite of the increased
                >discipline imposed on development and developers.
                >
                >On the other hand, i-mode (and the big web itself!!!) is the proof that
                >simplicity, error-resiliance and the ability to preview content in a
                >plain web-browser will boost the amount of content available for the new
                >platform.
                >
                >Personally, I sympathize for the latter viewpoint, since, at the end of
                >the day, we all depend on someone to pay our salaries at the end of the
                >month and the best solution is the one that makes the most money for our
                >companies in the end.
                >
                >For GAP, this means that the question is "does a large enough size of
                >existing microbrowsers handle tag-soup decently?". If the answer is yes,
                >then GAP should mention that HTML may be a good enough mark-up for a
                >whole share of minimally-technical mobile content authors.
                >If the answer is no, then GAP should say "Sorry, HTML may work here and
                >there, but it will not bring your mobile apps far enough".
                >
                >Tentatively, I endorsed the first scenario in GAP (HTML may be good
                >enough) and turned to this forum for confirmation/refutal. Your
                >viewpoint is noted.
                >
                >Thanks
                >
                >Luca
                >
                >Martin Kindler wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >>Luca,
                >>
                >>well, I do not really see the reason for this. XHTML MP is just a variant
                >>
                >>
                >of
                >
                >
                >>the "normal" XHTML which is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 with its
                >>syntax rules a bit more strict than HTML.
                >>If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine (fewer errors
                >>experienced by the user), but as author I should strive to create correct
                >>code and it is not so hard to do. The Doctype should also be part of the
                >>HTML document. Validation ensures that the document is valid, but is not
                >>strictly necessary.
                >>
                >>I would at most add a note that most microbrowsers also support some form
                >>
                >>
                >of
                >
                >
                >>HTML.
                >>
                >>Martin
                >>
                >>
                >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                >>Von: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                >>
                >>
                >yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@
                ><mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
                >
                >
                >>Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                >>Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 18:46
                >>An: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                >>
                >>
                >yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >>Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for
                >>
                >>
                >mobile
                >
                >
                >>devices?
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>Any reaction to this? may I assume it's good enough?
                >>
                >>Luca
                >>
                >>Luca Passani wrote:
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>>People, as you know, XHTML MP is the mark-up which has the best chance
                >>>of displaying correctly on mobile devices.
                >>>For this reason, we have this entry in GAP:
                >>>
                >>>http://www.passani <http://www.passani
                >>>
                >>>
                ><http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP> it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
                >
                >
                >>>
                >>>
                >>it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>>Having said this, I wonder if this is not excessively strict for
                >>>newbies. After all, plain HTML will work fine on a lot of devices by now.
                >>>For this reason, I added the following note to the practice:
                >>>---------------------------------
                >>>*Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is elevated
                >>><http://www.passani <http://www.passani
                >>>
                >>>
                ><http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline> it/gap/#elevbaseline>
                >
                >
                >>>
                >>>
                >>it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>>Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type |text/html|)
                >>>reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive
                >>>and negative implications for developers.
                >>>On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be slightly
                >>>diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web content to
                >>>mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd. This can affect the
                >>>rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
                >>>Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
                >>>errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is rendered
                >>>to the end user.
                >>>On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to deal
                >>>with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
                >>>validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
                >>>manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
                >>>A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
                >>>content with all web browsers.
                >>>---------------------------------
                >>>Questions for you:
                >>>- Do you agree with the note?
                >>>- can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
                >>>
                >>>Thanks
                >>>
                >>>Luca
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Martin Kindler
                Luca, ... I agree with you in so far as that it works is a mandatory property of any solution we might advocate. I surely do not like solutions which are
                Message 7 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Luca,

                  > mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                  > works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.
                  I agree with you in so far as "that it works" is a mandatory property of any
                  solution we might advocate. I surely do not like solutions which are pretty
                  in theory but fail in practice.

                  On the other hand there are specifications for mobile browsers which should
                  be followed and as my experience shows me are followed by most
                  implementations in the field. So why not propose following these?

                  "correct" for me means writing pages for mobile devices using XHTML MP as
                  markup language. This is the proposal of OMA and also the message given by
                  .mobi.
                  Correctness also includes sending a correct content-type header
                  (application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml), if possible or one of the others allowed by
                  the specification (application/xhtml+xml or text/html), if the correct one
                  is not possible. I have never experienced a microbrowser who claimed to be
                  XHTML MP compatible to misbehave, if the correct content-type was sent.

                  In your original posting you mentioned some ease-of-use reasons why to
                  mandate other markup practices.These were mainly that people are used to
                  HTML (which dialect?) but not to XHTML MP, that validation would be
                  problematic, and that adding correct DOCTYPE headers might be a pain.
                  Let me comment on each of these individually.

                  First, if the author of the pages is doing this individually (be it manually
                  or by writing his/her special software to generate it), I do not see a
                  problem. XHTML MP is just XHTML (with some add-ons nobody is forced to use)
                  which will not pose a problem to the author.
                  If s/he is using a standard CMS to create the pages that will normally not
                  be a problem, because they all support XHTML today.
                  There might be a problem, if some legacy application is responsible for
                  generating the markup. For this case one might add a comment that most
                  microbrowsers also support HTML 3.2/4.01 but testing is required.

                  Second, validation.
                  Validation is a good thing, especially if we have special software
                  generating the markup, but nobody is forced to explicitly validate his/her
                  pages. So this is not really a show stopper.

                  Third, doctypes.
                  Again, for individually written software or pages and out-of-the box CMS
                  this is no problem. For legacy apps one might again add a hint that
                  microbrowsers will mostly be graceful.

                  As I said before, errors and wrongly written pages will occur without doubt.
                  People are a bit sloppy. But in GAP one should propose one way in accordance
                  with the specifications and hint users where variations might be possible,
                  if need arises.

                  I strongly support Postel's Law: be conservative in what you do; be liberal
                  in which you accept from others.

                  Martin




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Andrea Trasatti
                  Luca, I think that it can be accepted to have text/html named in GAP, but the use of it should be discouraged not accepted. As you say, a lot of devices accept
                  Message 8 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Luca,
                    I think that it can be accepted to have text/html named in GAP, but
                    the use of it should be discouraged not accepted.

                    As you say, a lot of devices accept it and the Razr is one of those
                    (even supports frames!). I think HTML is supported in all Motorola
                    browsers from version 2.2.something.

                    I think that using XHTML and valid markup will help the device to
                    display the page correctly, will not slow down the page rendering and
                    hopefully will also give a higher warranty to the author that the
                    final layout will be as originally intended.
                    I am the first that creates tables for web browsers that are not 100%
                    valid and well constructed and the result is that sometimes the
                    tables are messed up, cells appear before or after the table. This is
                    ugly in a web browser with a big screen and fast scrolling, but is
                    unacceptable in a mobile device.

                    Using the correct prolog and DOCTYPE is not so hard if you use
                    anything that is not vim or notepad. I suggest you give a try at nvu,
                    it's free and will create valid XHTML Basic pages in a bliss.

                    If you want the GAP to be a point of reference, it should SUGGEST
                    good techniques and discourage bad techniques. If not, it will just
                    be a snapshot of what is the web and mobile web today, mostly
                    useless, I'd say.

                    In reply to Russ, I'd say that all the points he makes are valid and
                    demonstrate that while there isn't a real tag-soup in mobile, there
                    are a lot of discrepancy. My personal experience is that, if a page
                    is validated with the W3C's validator it'll work on any mobile.
                    Anything out of that will work smoothly (and sometimes better) on
                    some browsers and will work badly on picky browsers such as Teleca/
                    SonyEricsson or Jatayuu, etc.
                    I always tried to be conservative in my markup, if I wanted it to
                    work on any mobile and developed ad-hoc layouts when needed.
                    I experienced problems not using <?xml?> when using special chars
                    such as the Euro symbol, even if I was using the correct entity.
                    I think no browsers really check the DOCTYPE. I tried providing one
                    with a non-supported dtd and nothing happened on the devices I
                    tested. Using tags that were in that dtd defined, but not supported
                    by the browser, did not work, of course.

                    - Andrea

                    Il giorno 02/nov/06, alle ore 17:54, Luca Passani ha scritto:

                    >
                    > Oooops, I had overseen this message.
                    >
                    >> In my opinion GAP should advocate the "correct" way and mention that
                    > most
                    >> microbrowsers will be accepting other things as well.
                    >
                    > mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                    > works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.
                    >
                    > Luca
                    >
                    > Martin Kindler wrote:
                    >
                    >> Luca,
                    >>
                    >> I feel a bit misinterpreted. I found much of my feelings well
                    >> formulated in
                    >> the posting by Russ this morning.
                    >> In my opinion GAP should advocate the "correct" way and mention
                    >> that most
                    >> microbrowsers will be accepting other things as well.
                    >> Erroneous pages will be written by many people (including me) and
                    >> it is good
                    >> that browsers will render (most of) them in an acceptable way.
                    >> This is just normal entropy.
                    >>
                    >> It is not so simple to say HTML is accepted also. There are a lot of
                    >> variants of HTML, all well defined, and most browsers also accept
                    >> pages
                    >> which are invalid HTML version x.
                    >>
                    >> So, I would say, use (valid) XHTML MP for mobile phones. Whether
                    >> to use
                    >> "application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml" or "text/html* as MIME type I'ld
                    >> like to
                    >> hear some experiences (I typically use "text/html"). Additionally
                    >> I would
                    >> mention that most browsers will accept (partly) invalid documents.
                    >>
                    >> Martin
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                    >> Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                    >> [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
                    >> Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                    >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. November 2006 10:14
                    >> An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                    >> Betreff: Re: AW: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-
                    >> up for
                    >> mobile devices?
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine
                    >>> (fewer errors experienced by the user), but as author
                    >>> I should strive to create correct
                    >>> code and it is not so hard to do.
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>
                    >> This kind of thinking has been popular with a whole share of
                    >> developers
                    >> who would like to see standards prevail, in spite of the increased
                    >> discipline imposed on development and developers.
                    >>
                    >> On the other hand, i-mode (and the big web itself!!!) is the proof
                    >> that
                    >> simplicity, error-resiliance and the ability to preview content in a
                    >> plain web-browser will boost the amount of content available for
                    >> the new
                    >> platform.
                    >>
                    >> Personally, I sympathize for the latter viewpoint, since, at the
                    >> end of
                    >> the day, we all depend on someone to pay our salaries at the end
                    >> of the
                    >> month and the best solution is the one that makes the most money
                    >> for our
                    >> companies in the end.
                    >>
                    >> For GAP, this means that the question is "does a large enough size of
                    >> existing microbrowsers handle tag-soup decently?". If the answer
                    >> is yes,
                    >> then GAP should mention that HTML may be a good enough mark-up for a
                    >> whole share of minimally-technical mobile content authors.
                    >> If the answer is no, then GAP should say "Sorry, HTML may work
                    >> here and
                    >> there, but it will not bring your mobile apps far enough".
                    >>
                    >> Tentatively, I endorsed the first scenario in GAP (HTML may be good
                    >> enough) and turned to this forum for confirmation/refutal. Your
                    >> viewpoint is noted.
                    >>
                    >> Thanks
                    >>
                    >> Luca
                    >>
                    >> Martin Kindler wrote:
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> Luca,
                    >>>
                    >>> well, I do not really see the reason for this. XHTML MP is just a
                    >>> variant
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >> of
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> the "normal" XHTML which is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01
                    >>> with its
                    >>> syntax rules a bit more strict than HTML.
                    >>> If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine
                    >>> (fewer errors
                    >>> experienced by the user), but as author I should strive to create
                    >>> correct
                    >>> code and it is not so hard to do. The Doctype should also be part
                    >>> of the
                    >>> HTML document. Validation ensures that the document is valid, but
                    >>> is not
                    >>> strictly necessary.
                    >>>
                    >
                    >>> I would at most add a note that most microbrowsers also support
                    >>> some form
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >> of
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> HTML.
                    >>>
                    >>> Martin
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                    >>> Von: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >> yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@
                    >> <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                    >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 18:46
                    >>> An: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >> yahoogroups.com
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up
                    >>> for
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >> mobile
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> devices?
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> Any reaction to this? may I assume it's good enough?
                    >>>
                    >>> Luca
                    >>>
                    >>> Luca Passani wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>> People, as you know, XHTML MP is the mark-up which has the best
                    >>>> chance
                    >>>> of displaying correctly on mobile devices.
                    >>>> For this reason, we have this entry in GAP:
                    >>>>
                    >>>> http://www.passani <http://www.passani
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >> <http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP> it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>> it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>> Having said this, I wonder if this is not excessively strict for
                    >>>> newbies. After all, plain HTML will work fine on a lot of
                    >>>> devices by now.
                    >>>> For this reason, I added the following note to the practice:
                    >>>> ---------------------------------
                    >>>> *Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is
                    >>>> elevated
                    >>>> <http://www.passani <http://www.passani
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >> <http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline> it/gap/#elevbaseline>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>> it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>> Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type |text/
                    >>>> html|)
                    >>>> reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has
                    >>>> positive
                    >>>> and negative implications for developers.
                    >>>> On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be
                    >>>> slightly
                    >>>> diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web
                    >>>> content to
                    >>>> mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd. This can affect
                    >>>> the
                    >>>> rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
                    >>>> Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet
                    >>>> those
                    >>>> errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is
                    >>>> rendered
                    >>>> to the end user.
                    >>>> On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have
                    >>>> to deal
                    >>>> with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
                    >>>> validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
                    >>>> manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
                    >>>> A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview
                    >>>> mobile
                    >>>> content with all web browsers.
                    >>>> ---------------------------------
                    >>>> Questions for you:
                    >>>> - Do you agree with the note?
                    >>>> - can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Thanks
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Luca
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                    > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
                    > before you post.
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    Andrea Trasatti
                    My Blog: http://trasatti.blogspot.com/
                    W3C invited expert
                  • Luca Passani
                    I am not sure the practice, as it is today, is very different from what you seem to suggest: [VALID_XHTMLMP] Make sure that mobile pages are valid XHTML
                    Message 9 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I am not sure the practice, as it is today, is very different from what
                      you seem to suggest:

                      "[VALID_XHTMLMP] Make sure that mobile pages are valid XHTML Mobile
                      Profile 1.0"

                      The practice says "use XHTML" (and later "use the OMA MIME type" is
                      another practice).

                      All I am doing is acknowledging that HTML will work too with pros and
                      cons (and nobody has disagreed on any of those pros and cons
                      specifically). The objection I am hearing is that GAP should go nazi on
                      validation, to which my reaction is that being nazi will drive a lot of
                      potential authors away from mobile unnecessarily. If validating is too
                      cumbersome, they can still do HTML, comply with the other practices and
                      what you get is much much better than nothing.
                      For example, my experience tells me that, on many devices, an HTML page
                      with internal CSS will load (and render!) much faster than a perfectly
                      valid XHTML MP page with external CSS.

                      Also, there is a lot of HTML mobile-content around already. Just
                      tomention a few:

                      http://mobile.alitalia.it/
                      http://mobile.lastminute.com/
                      http://cityguide.mobi/

                      so, how could I legitimately say that writing mobile content in HTML is
                      an unacceptable practice when a lot of professional sites are doing it?

                      The GAP message is do Adaptation,
                      if you can't for any reason,do XHTML,
                      if you can't do XHTML for any reason, HTML will still do.

                      If the point is political (we need to create a brotherhood of people who
                      will push XHTML for the progress of mankind), that's a different point,
                      one we can discuss, but certainly it's not a practice.

                      "Main Entry: practice
                      Variant(s): also practise
                      Function: noun
                      1 a : actual performance or application <ready to carry out in practice
                      what they advocated in principle> b : a repeated or customary action
                      <had this irritating practice> c : the usual way of doing something
                      <local practices>"

                      Anyway, if someone has an alternative text for the practice, be my guest...

                      Luca


                      Andrea Trasatti wrote:

                      >Luca,
                      > I think that it can be accepted to have text/html named in GAP, but
                      >the use of it should be discouraged not accepted.
                      >
                      >As you say, a lot of devices accept it and the Razr is one of those
                      >(even supports frames!). I think HTML is supported in all Motorola
                      >browsers from version 2.2.something.
                      >
                      >I think that using XHTML and valid markup will help the device to
                      >display the page correctly, will not slow down the page rendering and
                      >hopefully will also give a higher warranty to the author that the
                      >final layout will be as originally intended.
                      >I am the first that creates tables for web browsers that are not 100%
                      >valid and well constructed and the result is that sometimes the
                      >tables are messed up, cells appear before or after the table. This is
                      >ugly in a web browser with a big screen and fast scrolling, but is
                      >unacceptable in a mobile device.
                      >
                      >Using the correct prolog and DOCTYPE is not so hard if you use
                      >anything that is not vim or notepad. I suggest you give a try at nvu,
                      >it's free and will create valid XHTML Basic pages in a bliss.
                      >
                      >If you want the GAP to be a point of reference, it should SUGGEST
                      >good techniques and discourage bad techniques. If not, it will just
                      >be a snapshot of what is the web and mobile web today, mostly
                      >useless, I'd say.
                      >
                      >In reply to Russ, I'd say that all the points he makes are valid and
                      >demonstrate that while there isn't a real tag-soup in mobile, there
                      >are a lot of discrepancy. My personal experience is that, if a page
                      >is validated with the W3C's validator it'll work on any mobile.
                      >Anything out of that will work smoothly (and sometimes better) on
                      >some browsers and will work badly on picky browsers such as Teleca/
                      >SonyEricsson or Jatayuu, etc.
                      >I always tried to be conservative in my markup, if I wanted it to
                      >work on any mobile and developed ad-hoc layouts when needed.
                      >I experienced problems not using <?xml?> when using special chars
                      >such as the Euro symbol, even if I was using the correct entity.
                      >I think no browsers really check the DOCTYPE. I tried providing one
                      >with a non-supported dtd and nothing happened on the devices I
                      >tested. Using tags that were in that dtd defined, but not supported
                      >by the browser, did not work, of course.
                      >
                      >- Andrea
                      >
                      >Il giorno 02/nov/06, alle ore 17:54, Luca Passani ha scritto:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >>Oooops, I had overseen this message.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>In my opinion GAP should advocate the "correct" way and mention that
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>most
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>microbrowsers will be accepting other things as well.
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                      >>works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.
                      >>
                      >>Luca
                      >>
                      >>Martin Kindler wrote:
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>Luca,
                      >>>
                      >>>I feel a bit misinterpreted. I found much of my feelings well
                      >>>formulated in
                      >>>the posting by Russ this morning.
                      >>>In my opinion GAP should advocate the "correct" way and mention
                      >>>that most
                      >>>microbrowsers will be accepting other things as well.
                      >>>Erroneous pages will be written by many people (including me) and
                      >>>it is good
                      >>>that browsers will render (most of) them in an acceptable way.
                      >>>This is just normal entropy.
                      >>>
                      >>>It is not so simple to say HTML is accepted also. There are a lot of
                      >>>variants of HTML, all well defined, and most browsers also accept
                      >>>pages
                      >>>which are invalid HTML version x.
                      >>>
                      >>>So, I would say, use (valid) XHTML MP for mobile phones. Whether
                      >>>to use
                      >>>"application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml" or "text/html* as MIME type I'ld
                      >>>like to
                      >>>hear some experiences (I typically use "text/html"). Additionally
                      >>>I would
                      >>>mention that most browsers will accept (partly) invalid documents.
                      >>>
                      >>>Martin
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                      >>>Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                      >>>[mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
                      >>>Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                      >>>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. November 2006 10:14
                      >>>An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                      >>>Betreff: Re: AW: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-
                      >>>up for
                      >>>mobile devices?
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine
                      >>>>(fewer errors experienced by the user), but as author
                      >>>>I should strive to create correct
                      >>>>code and it is not so hard to do.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>This kind of thinking has been popular with a whole share of
                      >>>developers
                      >>>who would like to see standards prevail, in spite of the increased
                      >>>discipline imposed on development and developers.
                      >>>
                      >>>On the other hand, i-mode (and the big web itself!!!) is the proof
                      >>>that
                      >>>simplicity, error-resiliance and the ability to preview content in a
                      >>>plain web-browser will boost the amount of content available for
                      >>>the new
                      >>>platform.
                      >>>
                      >>>Personally, I sympathize for the latter viewpoint, since, at the
                      >>>end of
                      >>>the day, we all depend on someone to pay our salaries at the end
                      >>>of the
                      >>>month and the best solution is the one that makes the most money
                      >>>for our
                      >>>companies in the end.
                      >>>
                      >>>For GAP, this means that the question is "does a large enough size of
                      >>>existing microbrowsers handle tag-soup decently?". If the answer
                      >>>is yes,
                      >>>then GAP should mention that HTML may be a good enough mark-up for a
                      >>>whole share of minimally-technical mobile content authors.
                      >>>If the answer is no, then GAP should say "Sorry, HTML may work
                      >>>here and
                      >>>there, but it will not bring your mobile apps far enough".
                      >>>
                      >>>Tentatively, I endorsed the first scenario in GAP (HTML may be good
                      >>>enough) and turned to this forum for confirmation/refutal. Your
                      >>>viewpoint is noted.
                      >>>
                      >>>Thanks
                      >>>
                      >>>Luca
                      >>>
                      >>>Martin Kindler wrote:
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>Luca,
                      >>>>
                      >>>>well, I do not really see the reason for this. XHTML MP is just a
                      >>>>variant
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>of
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>the "normal" XHTML which is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01
                      >>>>with its
                      >>>>syntax rules a bit more strict than HTML.
                      >>>>If the (micro)browser accepts not really valid XHTML MP: fine
                      >>>>(fewer errors
                      >>>>experienced by the user), but as author I should strive to create
                      >>>>correct
                      >>>>code and it is not so hard to do. The Doctype should also be part
                      >>>>of the
                      >>>>HTML document. Validation ensures that the document is valid, but
                      >>>>is not
                      >>>>strictly necessary.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>I would at most add a note that most microbrowsers also support
                      >>>>some form
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>of
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>HTML.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>Martin
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                      >>>>Von: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@
                      >>><mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                      >>>>Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 18:46
                      >>>>An: wmlprogramming@ <mailto:wmlprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>yahoogroups.com
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up
                      >>>>for
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>mobile
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>devices?
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>Any reaction to this? may I assume it's good enough?
                      >>>>
                      >>>>Luca
                      >>>>
                      >>>>Luca Passani wrote:
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>>People, as you know, XHTML MP is the mark-up which has the best
                      >>>>>chance
                      >>>>>of displaying correctly on mobile devices.
                      >>>>>For this reason, we have this entry in GAP:
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>http://www.passani <http://www.passani
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>><http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP> it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>>Having said this, I wonder if this is not excessively strict for
                      >>>>>newbies. After all, plain HTML will work fine on a lot of
                      >>>>>devices by now.
                      >>>>>For this reason, I added the following note to the practice:
                      >>>>>---------------------------------
                      >>>>>*Note:* This practice may be revisited in case the baseline is
                      >>>>>elevated
                      >>>>><http://www.passani <http://www.passani
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>><http://www.passani.it/gap/#elevbaseline> it/gap/#elevbaseline>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>it/gap/#elevbaseline>.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>>Most mobile browsers today render plain html (content type |text/
                      >>>>>html|)
                      >>>>>reasonably well. Resorting to HTML for mobile development has
                      >>>>>positive
                      >>>>>and negative implications for developers.
                      >>>>>On the negative side, the number of supported devices would be
                      >>>>>slightly
                      >>>>>diminished. Some microbrowsers apply heuristics to adapt web
                      >>>>>content to
                      >>>>>mobile when the HTML content type is encounterd. This can affect
                      >>>>>the
                      >>>>>rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
                      >>>>>Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet
                      >>>>>those
                      >>>>>errors would impact negatively the speed with which a page is
                      >>>>>rendered
                      >>>>>to the end user.
                      >>>>>On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have
                      >>>>>to deal
                      >>>>>with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
                      >>>>>validate content, adding obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each page,
                      >>>>>manage unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
                      >>>>>A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview
                      >>>>>mobile
                      >>>>>content with all web browsers.
                      >>>>>---------------------------------
                      >>>>>Questions for you:
                      >>>>>- Do you agree with the note?
                      >>>>>- can a mother tongue speaker review the wording?
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>Thanks
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>Luca
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>
                      >>As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                      >>Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
                      >>before you post.
                      >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >Andrea Trasatti
                      >My Blog: http://trasatti.blogspot.com/
                      >W3C invited expert
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                      >Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Andrea Trasatti
                      ... All I wanted to do is to point out that I feel like HTML should be as a last resort. Should say something like if you re SO lazy that you can t even make
                      Message 10 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Il giorno 03/nov/06, alle ore 12:45, Luca Passani ha scritto:

                        >
                        > I am not sure the practice, as it is today, is very different from
                        > what
                        > you seem to suggest:
                        >
                        > "[VALID_XHTMLMP] Make sure that mobile pages are valid XHTML Mobile
                        > Profile 1.0"
                        >
                        > The practice says "use XHTML" (and later "use the OMA MIME type" is
                        > another practice).
                        >
                        > All I am doing is acknowledging that HTML will work too with pros and
                        > cons (and nobody has disagreed on any of those pros and cons
                        > specifically). The objection I am hearing is that GAP should go
                        > nazi on
                        > validation, to which my reaction is that being nazi will drive a
                        > lot of
                        > potential authors away from mobile unnecessarily. If validating is too
                        > cumbersome, they can still do HTML, comply with the other practices
                        > and
                        > what you get is much much better than nothing.
                        > For example, my experience tells me that, on many devices, an HTML
                        > page
                        > with internal CSS will load (and render!) much faster than a perfectly
                        > valid XHTML MP page with external CSS.

                        All I wanted to do is to point out that I feel like HTML should be as
                        a last resort.
                        Should say something like "if you're SO lazy that you can't even make
                        valid XHTML", but still want to do mobile, HTML is still acceptable.

                        The real point where I disagree with you is about being hard to make
                        a page valid.

                        It can be hard for Yahoo! that collects text, pages, contents and
                        more from hundreds of different sources and does its best to make it
                        something readable and usable.
                        I bet our lazy friends of Alitalia could make a better job as much as
                        trenitalia.com is one of the most unusable sites on the web.

                        > Also, there is a lot of HTML mobile-content around already. Just
                        > tomention a few:
                        >
                        > http://mobile.alitalia.it/
                        > http://mobile.lastminute.com/
                        > http://cityguide.mobi/
                        >
                        > so, how could I legitimately say that writing mobile content in
                        > HTML is
                        > an unacceptable practice when a lot of professional sites are doing
                        > it?

                        I would say "aim for something better".
                        The fact that a lot of people does it, does not mean it's correct to
                        do it. We have a lot of examples that would prove me right and many
                        others that would prove you right. Let's not go down this path and
                        stay attached to the original idea of GAP.
                        Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept is to provide a list of
                        directives that an author should follow to make sure that his
                        contents will be visible on a mobile device. Avoid pitfalls, don't
                        repeat mistakes that others have already done.
                        If all this is true, than HTML should be the last of the last
                        resorts, if we are speaking of mobile in Europe, USA and South
                        America. i-mode is another story. Certainly HTML helped it to get
                        spread quickly, but it was not the ONLY reason. Marketing, device
                        features uniformity and carrier support were very important too.

                        my 2 cents.


                        > The GAP message is do Adaptation,
                        > if you can't for any reason,do XHTML,
                        > if you can't do XHTML for any reason, HTML will still do.
                        >
                        > If the point is political (we need to create a brotherhood of
                        > people who
                        > will push XHTML for the progress of mankind), that's a different
                        > point,
                        > one we can discuss, but certainly it's not a practice.

                        I'd like better a multilevel marketing in which I'm at the top, all
                        members work for me and I get a high percentage of all the earnings.
                        Can we do this, instead?


                        Andrea Trasatti
                        My Blog: http://trasatti.blogspot.com/
                        W3C invited expert
                      • Luca Passani
                        But the we agree. HTML is presented as a last resort. Luca
                        Message 11 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          But the we agree. HTML is presented as a last resort.

                          Luca

                          Andrea Trasatti wrote:

                          >Il giorno 03/nov/06, alle ore 12:45, Luca Passani ha scritto:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >>I am not sure the practice, as it is today, is very different from
                          >>what
                          >>you seem to suggest:
                          >>
                          >>"[VALID_XHTMLMP] Make sure that mobile pages are valid XHTML Mobile
                          >>Profile 1.0"
                          >>
                          >>The practice says "use XHTML" (and later "use the OMA MIME type" is
                          >>another practice).
                          >>
                          >>All I am doing is acknowledging that HTML will work too with pros and
                          >>cons (and nobody has disagreed on any of those pros and cons
                          >>specifically). The objection I am hearing is that GAP should go
                          >>nazi on
                          >>validation, to which my reaction is that being nazi will drive a
                          >>lot of
                          >>potential authors away from mobile unnecessarily. If validating is too
                          >>cumbersome, they can still do HTML, comply with the other practices
                          >>and
                          >>what you get is much much better than nothing.
                          >>For example, my experience tells me that, on many devices, an HTML
                          >>page
                          >>with internal CSS will load (and render!) much faster than a perfectly
                          >>valid XHTML MP page with external CSS.
                          >>
                          >>
                          >
                          >All I wanted to do is to point out that I feel like HTML should be as
                          >a last resort.
                          >Should say something like "if you're SO lazy that you can't even make
                          >valid XHTML", but still want to do mobile, HTML is still acceptable.
                          >
                          >The real point where I disagree with you is about being hard to make
                          >a page valid.
                          >
                          >It can be hard for Yahoo! that collects text, pages, contents and
                          >more from hundreds of different sources and does its best to make it
                          >something readable and usable.
                          >I bet our lazy friends of Alitalia could make a better job as much as
                          >trenitalia.com is one of the most unusable sites on the web.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >>Also, there is a lot of HTML mobile-content around already. Just
                          >>tomention a few:
                          >>
                          >>http://mobile.alitalia.it/
                          >>http://mobile.lastminute.com/
                          >>http://cityguide.mobi/
                          >>
                          >>so, how could I legitimately say that writing mobile content in
                          >>HTML is
                          >>an unacceptable practice when a lot of professional sites are doing
                          >>it?
                          >>
                          >>
                          >
                          >I would say "aim for something better".
                          >The fact that a lot of people does it, does not mean it's correct to
                          >do it. We have a lot of examples that would prove me right and many
                          >others that would prove you right. Let's not go down this path and
                          >stay attached to the original idea of GAP.
                          >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept is to provide a list of
                          >directives that an author should follow to make sure that his
                          >contents will be visible on a mobile device. Avoid pitfalls, don't
                          >repeat mistakes that others have already done.
                          >If all this is true, than HTML should be the last of the last
                          >resorts, if we are speaking of mobile in Europe, USA and South
                          >America. i-mode is another story. Certainly HTML helped it to get
                          >spread quickly, but it was not the ONLY reason. Marketing, device
                          >features uniformity and carrier support were very important too.
                          >
                          >my 2 cents.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >>The GAP message is do Adaptation,
                          >>if you can't for any reason,do XHTML,
                          >>if you can't do XHTML for any reason, HTML will still do.
                          >>
                          >>If the point is political (we need to create a brotherhood of
                          >>people who
                          >>will push XHTML for the progress of mankind), that's a different
                          >>point,
                          >>one we can discuss, but certainly it's not a practice.
                          >>
                          >>
                          >
                          >I'd like better a multilevel marketing in which I'm at the top, all
                          >members work for me and I get a high percentage of all the earnings.
                          >Can we do this, instead?
                          >
                          >
                          >Andrea Trasatti
                          >My Blog: http://trasatti.blogspot.com/
                          >W3C invited expert
                          >
                          >
                        • Luca Passani
                          I have modified the note like follows: http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile content
                          Message 12 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I have modified the note like follows:

                            http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP

                            "A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
                            content with all web browsers, including MS Internet Explorer, which
                            notoriously cannot handle the XHTML Mime type.
                            As a general rule, it is recommended that XHTML MP is adopted, since the
                            extra effort for the developer is limited, but there are obvious
                            advantages in terms of rendering speed and number of devices supported."

                            Is this better?

                            Luca

                            Andrea Trasatti wrote:
                          • Martin Kindler
                            Luca, could you please clarify the difference between the markup language HTML (then it should be noted which version or any version) and usage of Content-Type
                            Message 13 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Luca,

                              could you please clarify the difference between the markup language HTML
                              (then it should be noted which version or any version) and usage of
                              Content-Type "text/html" which is one possible choice to use in conjunction
                              with XHTML MP. The current text seems to equate HTML (i. e. HTML 3.2/HTML
                              4.01) with text/html which is not correct.

                              Perhaps there are two advices you want to give to help developers who cannot
                              use XHTML MP:
                              first, if their problem is the Content-Type (some browser might not accept
                              application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml) use a more generic one (application/xhtml+xml
                              or txt/html).
                              This "should" also be understood by conforming microbrowsers.

                              second, if their problem is that they cannot use the markup language, advise
                              them that HTML3.2 or HTML4.01 (or XHTML 1.0) is probably also possible (and
                              use the correct Conten-Type: application/xhtml+xml or text/html
                              respectively).

                              Martin


                              -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                              Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
                              Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                              Gesendet: Freitag, 3. November 2006 14:41
                              An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                              Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for mobile
                              devices?




                              I have modified the note like follows:

                              http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
                              it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP

                              "A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
                              content with all web browsers, including MS Internet Explorer, which
                              notoriously cannot handle the XHTML Mime type.
                              As a general rule, it is recommended that XHTML MP is adopted, since the
                              extra effort for the developer is limited, but there are obvious
                              advantages in terms of rendering speed and number of devices supported."

                              Is this better?

                              Luca

                              Andrea Trasatti wrote:






                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Andrea Trasatti
                              Good for me. - Andrea
                              Message 14 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Good for me.


                                - Andrea


                                Il giorno 03/nov/06, alle ore 14:40, Luca Passani ha scritto:

                                >
                                > I have modified the note like follows:
                                >
                                > http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
                                >
                                > "A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
                                > content with all web browsers, including MS Internet Explorer, which
                                > notoriously cannot handle the XHTML Mime type.
                                > As a general rule, it is recommended that XHTML MP is adopted,
                                > since the
                                > extra effort for the developer is limited, but there are obvious
                                > advantages in terms of rendering speed and number of devices
                                > supported."
                                >
                                > Is this better?
                                >
                                > Luca
                                >
                                > Andrea Trasatti wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                                > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
                                > before you post.
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • passani@eunet.no
                                most devices assume text/html to mean HTML tagsoup. Serving XHTML with the tagsoup mime type will roughly work, but it will make the effort to get your
                                Message 15 of 25 , Nov 3, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  most devices assume text/html to mean HTML tagsoup. Serving XHTML with the
                                  tagsoup mime type will roughly work, but it will make the effort to get
                                  your graphics right useless on some devices (not to mention different
                                  interpretation of meta-tags and stuff). If you serve text/html you might
                                  as well serve tagsoup, because the parser will be exactly the same (i.e.
                                  one that assumes that the code may be wrong). It's like telling the
                                  browser that "meat is coming". The browser will get ready to put catchup
                                  and mustard on the burger, and it will put it on top of the meat even if
                                  it happens to be fillet.

                                  What I really meant when I wrote HTML in GAP is tagsoup HTML, even though
                                  I am not sure I have seen a formal definition of tagsoup anywhere,
                                  probably because it can't have a definition by definition.

                                  The fact is that all web browsers understand tag soup and most mobile
                                  browsers seem to do it too lately. The good part about tagsoup is that it
                                  virtually never breaks the rendering experience with something as ugly and
                                  catastrophic as an error message. Sure, the browser may freeze for a
                                  second, burp, just to move on one second later and keep on rendering. Your
                                  random end-user won't notice much difference.
                                  Tagsoup has also another advantage: a very shallow learning curve. You
                                  learn 4 tags and rock&roll...you are publishing on the net...

                                  This is really what I meant...is this what those who read GAP will
                                  understand?

                                  Luca

                                  > Luca,
                                  >
                                  > could you please clarify the difference between the markup language HTML
                                  > (then it should be noted which version or any version) and usage of
                                  > Content-Type "text/html" which is one possible choice to use in
                                  > conjunction
                                  > with XHTML MP. The current text seems to equate HTML (i. e. HTML 3.2/HTML
                                  > 4.01) with text/html which is not correct.
                                  >
                                  > Perhaps there are two advices you want to give to help developers who
                                  > cannot
                                  > use XHTML MP:
                                  > first, if their problem is the Content-Type (some browser might not accept
                                  > application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml) use a more generic one
                                  > (application/xhtml+xml
                                  > or txt/html).
                                  > This "should" also be understood by conforming microbrowsers.
                                  >
                                  > second, if their problem is that they cannot use the markup language,
                                  > advise
                                  > them that HTML3.2 or HTML4.01 (or XHTML 1.0) is probably also possible
                                  > (and
                                  > use the correct Conten-Type: application/xhtml+xml or text/html
                                  > respectively).
                                  >
                                  > Martin
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                                  > Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                                  > [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
                                  > Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                                  > Gesendet: Freitag, 3. November 2006 14:41
                                  > An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Betreff: Re: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up for
                                  > mobile
                                  > devices?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I have modified the note like follows:
                                  >
                                  > http://www.passani <http://www.passani.it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP>
                                  > it/gap/#VALID_XHTMLMP
                                  >
                                  > "A significant extra advantage would be the ability to preview mobile
                                  > content with all web browsers, including MS Internet Explorer, which
                                  > notoriously cannot handle the XHTML Mime type.
                                  > As a general rule, it is recommended that XHTML MP is adopted, since the
                                  > extra effort for the developer is limited, but there are obvious
                                  > advantages in terms of rendering speed and number of devices supported."
                                  >
                                  > Is this better?
                                  >
                                  > Luca
                                  >
                                  > Andrea Trasatti wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Joe Bowbeer
                                  I m confused by the HTML discussion. Perhaps it s time for a summary or a recap - if others are in the same predicament. In my reading of GAP, XHTML-MP is
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Nov 4, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I'm confused by the HTML discussion. Perhaps it's time for a summary
                                    or a recap - if others are in the same predicament.

                                    In my reading of GAP, XHTML-MP is the cornerstone. XHTML-MP is
                                    mentioned twice in the abstract.

                                    Example from http://www.passani.it/gap/ abstract:

                                    "This document is a guide about how to get the most out of single
                                    non-dinamically [sic] generated XHTML MP pages ..."

                                    [oops - note type]

                                    That's pretty clear. Beginners need strong guidelines. Specs are good.

                                    So where does this HTML discussion fit in? Is it a footnote at the
                                    bottom (seems fine to me) or does it make the abstract?

                                    (Sorry for the confusion.)

                                    --Joe


                                    On 11/3/06, Martin Kindler <kindlerm@...> wrote:
                                    > Luca,
                                    >
                                    > > mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                                    > > works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.
                                    >
                                    > I agree with you in so far as "that it works" is a mandatory property
                                    > of any solution we might advocate. I surely do not like solutions which
                                    > are pretty in theory but fail in practice.
                                    >
                                    > On the other hand there are specifications for mobile browsers which
                                    > should be followed and as my experience shows me are followed by
                                    > most implementations in the field. So why not propose following these?
                                    >
                                    > "correct" for me means writing pages for mobile devices using
                                    > XHTML MP as markup language. This is the proposal of OMA
                                    > and also the message given by .mobi.
                                    >
                                    > Correctness also includes sending a correct content-type header
                                    > (application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml), if possible or one of the others
                                    > allowed by the specification (application/xhtml+xml or text/html),
                                    > if the correct one is not possible. I have never experienced a
                                    > microbrowser who claimed to be XHTML MP compatible to misbehave,
                                    > if the correct content-type was sent.
                                    >
                                  • Luca Passani
                                    Joe, you are getting it right. GAP is about XHTML-MP, and the one about HTML is just a footnote. I agree that this is confusing though. Maybe I should do just
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Nov 4, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Joe, you are getting it right. GAP is about XHTML-MP, and the one about
                                      HTML is just a footnote.
                                      I agree that this is confusing though. Maybe I should do just what I did
                                      with WML: dedicate a section of GAP to explain why people shouldn't do HTML.

                                      I'll think about it....

                                      Luca

                                      Joe Bowbeer wrote:

                                      >I'm confused by the HTML discussion. Perhaps it's time for a summary
                                      >or a recap - if others are in the same predicament.
                                      >
                                      >In my reading of GAP, XHTML-MP is the cornerstone. XHTML-MP is
                                      >mentioned twice in the abstract.
                                      >
                                      >Example from http://www.passani.it/gap/ abstract:
                                      >
                                      >"This document is a guide about how to get the most out of single
                                      >non-dinamically [sic] generated XHTML MP pages ..."
                                      >
                                      >[oops - note type]
                                      >
                                      >That's pretty clear. Beginners need strong guidelines. Specs are good.
                                      >
                                      >So where does this HTML discussion fit in? Is it a footnote at the
                                      >bottom (seems fine to me) or does it make the abstract?
                                      >
                                      >(Sorry for the confusion.)
                                      >
                                      >--Joe
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >On 11/3/06, Martin Kindler <kindlerm@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >>Luca,
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>>mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                                      >>>works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>I agree with you in so far as "that it works" is a mandatory property
                                      >>of any solution we might advocate. I surely do not like solutions which
                                      >>are pretty in theory but fail in practice.
                                      >>
                                      >>On the other hand there are specifications for mobile browsers which
                                      >>should be followed and as my experience shows me are followed by
                                      >>most implementations in the field. So why not propose following these?
                                      >>
                                      >>"correct" for me means writing pages for mobile devices using
                                      >>XHTML MP as markup language. This is the proposal of OMA
                                      >>and also the message given by .mobi.
                                      >>
                                      >>Correctness also includes sending a correct content-type header
                                      >>(application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml), if possible or one of the others
                                      >>allowed by the specification (application/xhtml+xml or text/html),
                                      >>if the correct one is not possible. I have never experienced a
                                      >>microbrowser who claimed to be XHTML MP compatible to misbehave,
                                      >>if the correct content-type was sent.
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                                      >Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.
                                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Luca Passani
                                      Comrades, I pulled the controversial part out of the VALID_XHTMLMP practice, and placed it in a paragraph of its own, where I explicitly and extensively deal
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Nov 5, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Comrades, I pulled the controversial part out of the VALID_XHTMLMP
                                        practice, and placed it in a paragraph of its own, where I explicitly
                                        and extensively deal with the issue:

                                        http://www.passani.it/gap/#htmluniv

                                        Hopefully, this presents the problem in a neutral enough way that
                                        everyone agrees on it.
                                        As usual, mothetongue english speakers are encouraged to point out
                                        errors of different kinds in the usage of the language. Thanks


                                        1.7 The Role of HTML as a Universal Mark-up for Mobile

                                        While multiple versions of HTML [HTML <http://www.passani.it/gap/#html>]
                                        have been made available to developers over the years, today's
                                        predominant coding style on the web is still the one often referred to
                                        as "tag soup", i.e. HTML tags are used according to the visual effect
                                        they produce on one or more browsers, and not according to strict syntax
                                        rules and clear standard-based semantics.

                                        Tag-soup HTML is typically served with |text/html| conten type. In spite
                                        of the fact that usage of tag-soup HTML is frowned upon by those who
                                        advocate XML-based XHTML 1.0, it has been argued that much of the
                                        success of i-Mode in Japan is due to the choice of "Compact-HTML" (a
                                        subset of HTML) as the mobile mark-up: by being lenient with mark-up
                                        errors, CHTML has effectively enabled thousands of Japanese users to
                                        publish mobile content. Some argue that resilience to HTML errors in web
                                        browsers (often referred to as 'quirks mode' HTML parsing) has fueled
                                        the exponential growth of web content.

                                        Because of its widespread adoption on the web, most mobile microbrowsers
                                        can render 'tag soup' HTML with varying degrees of success. Such
                                        generalized support for HTML-based mark-ups has effectively turned HTML
                                        into a candidate language for mobile.
                                        Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive and negative
                                        implications for developers.
                                        On the negative side, by adopting HTML, the number of supported devices
                                        would be reduced. In addition, some microbrowsers apply heuristics to
                                        adapt web content to mobile when the HTML content type (|taxt/html|) is
                                        encounterd. This can affect the rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
                                        Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
                                        errors would negatively impact the page rendering speed, thus reducing
                                        the perceived responsiveness of the system and degrading usability.
                                        On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to deal
                                        with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
                                        validate content, adding relatively obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each
                                        page, manage the configuration of unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
                                        A significant extra advantage with HTML would be the ability to preview
                                        mobile content with all web browsers, including MS Internet Explorer,
                                        which notoriously cannot handle the XHTML Mime type properly [XHTMLMIME
                                        <http://www.passani.it/gap/#mimetypeissues>].
                                        While this document elects XHTML-MP as the mark-up of choice for mobile,
                                        it is acknowledged that HTML may represent a viable alternative for
                                        hobbists and semi-professional mobile authors.
                                        Nevertheless, this document discourages developers from adopting HTML as
                                        a mobile mark-up, since the extra effort required by using XHTML MP is
                                        limited when compared to the advantages in terms of rendering speed and
                                        number of devices supported.
                                        It should be noted that the majority of practices in this document will
                                        also apply when HTML is adopted and HTML authors will benefit from
                                        reading this document as well.

                                        Luca



                                        Luca Passani wrote:

                                        >Joe, you are getting it right. GAP is about XHTML-MP, and the one about
                                        >HTML is just a footnote.
                                        >I agree that this is confusing though. Maybe I should do just what I did
                                        >with WML: dedicate a section of GAP to explain why people shouldn't do HTML.
                                        >
                                        >I'll think about it....
                                        >
                                        >Luca
                                        >
                                        >Joe Bowbeer wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >>I'm confused by the HTML discussion. Perhaps it's time for a summary
                                        >>or a recap - if others are in the same predicament.
                                        >>
                                        >>In my reading of GAP, XHTML-MP is the cornerstone. XHTML-MP is
                                        >>mentioned twice in the abstract.
                                        >>
                                        >>Example from http://www.passani.it/gap/ abstract:
                                        >>
                                        >>"This document is a guide about how to get the most out of single
                                        >>non-dinamically [sic] generated XHTML MP pages ..."
                                        >>
                                        >>[oops - note type]
                                        >>
                                        >>That's pretty clear. Beginners need strong guidelines. Specs are good.
                                        >>
                                        >>So where does this HTML discussion fit in? Is it a footnote at the
                                        >>bottom (seems fine to me) or does it make the abstract?
                                        >>
                                        >>(Sorry for the confusion.)
                                        >>
                                        >>--Joe
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>On 11/3/06, Martin Kindler <kindlerm@...> wrote:
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>>Luca,
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>>mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                                        >>>>works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>I agree with you in so far as "that it works" is a mandatory property
                                        >>>of any solution we might advocate. I surely do not like solutions which
                                        >>>are pretty in theory but fail in practice.
                                        >>>
                                        >>>On the other hand there are specifications for mobile browsers which
                                        >>>should be followed and as my experience shows me are followed by
                                        >>>most implementations in the field. So why not propose following these?
                                        >>>
                                        >>>"correct" for me means writing pages for mobile devices using
                                        >>>XHTML MP as markup language. This is the proposal of OMA
                                        >>>and also the message given by .mobi.
                                        >>>
                                        >>>Correctness also includes sending a correct content-type header
                                        >>>(application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml), if possible or one of the others
                                        >>>allowed by the specification (application/xhtml+xml or text/html),
                                        >>>if the correct one is not possible. I have never experienced a
                                        >>>microbrowser who claimed to be XHTML MP compatible to misbehave,
                                        >>>if the correct content-type was sent.
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                                        >>Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.
                                        >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                                        >Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.
                                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Martin Kindler
                                        Luca, this is OK for me. Thanks! Martin ... Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Luca Passani Gesendet:
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Nov 6, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Luca,

                                          this is OK for me. Thanks!

                                          Martin


                                          -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                                          Von: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com]
                                          Im Auftrag von Luca Passani
                                          Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. November 2006 11:46
                                          An: wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                                          Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [wmlprogramming] GAP: accept plain HTML as a mark-up
                                          for mobile devices?




                                          Comrades, I pulled the controversial part out of the VALID_XHTMLMP
                                          practice, and placed it in a paragraph of its own, where I explicitly
                                          and extensively deal with the issue:

                                          http://www.passani. <http://www.passani.it/gap/#htmluniv> it/gap/#htmluniv

                                          Hopefully, this presents the problem in a neutral enough way that
                                          everyone agrees on it.
                                          As usual, mothetongue english speakers are encouraged to point out
                                          errors of different kinds in the usage of the language. Thanks

                                          1.7 The Role of HTML as a Universal Mark-up for Mobile

                                          While multiple versions of HTML [HTML <http://www.passani.
                                          <http://www.passani.it/gap/#html> it/gap/#html>]
                                          have been made available to developers over the years, today's
                                          predominant coding style on the web is still the one often referred to
                                          as "tag soup", i.e. HTML tags are used according to the visual effect
                                          they produce on one or more browsers, and not according to strict syntax
                                          rules and clear standard-based semantics.

                                          Tag-soup HTML is typically served with |text/html| conten type. In spite
                                          of the fact that usage of tag-soup HTML is frowned upon by those who
                                          advocate XML-based XHTML 1.0, it has been argued that much of the
                                          success of i-Mode in Japan is due to the choice of "Compact-HTML" (a
                                          subset of HTML) as the mobile mark-up: by being lenient with mark-up
                                          errors, CHTML has effectively enabled thousands of Japanese users to
                                          publish mobile content. Some argue that resilience to HTML errors in web
                                          browsers (often referred to as 'quirks mode' HTML parsing) has fueled
                                          the exponential growth of web content.

                                          Because of its widespread adoption on the web, most mobile microbrowsers
                                          can render 'tag soup' HTML with varying degrees of success. Such
                                          generalized support for HTML-based mark-ups has effectively turned HTML
                                          into a candidate language for mobile.
                                          Resorting to HTML for mobile development has positive and negative
                                          implications for developers.
                                          On the negative side, by adopting HTML, the number of supported devices
                                          would be reduced. In addition, some microbrowsers apply heuristics to
                                          adapt web content to mobile when the HTML content type (|taxt/html|) is
                                          encounterd. This can affect the rendering of a page in unexpected ways.
                                          Finally, HTML would make errors in mark-up go by undetected, yet those
                                          errors would negatively impact the page rendering speed, thus reducing
                                          the perceived responsiveness of the system and degrading usability.
                                          On the positive side, by adopting HTML, 'newbies' would not have to deal
                                          with the intricacies of XML-based mark-ups, such as: the need to
                                          validate content, adding relatively obscure XML prolog/doctypes to each
                                          page, manage the configuration of unfamiliar MIME types and so on.
                                          A significant extra advantage with HTML would be the ability to preview
                                          mobile content with all web browsers, including MS Internet Explorer,
                                          which notoriously cannot handle the XHTML Mime type properly [XHTMLMIME
                                          <http://www.passani. <http://www.passani.it/gap/#mimetypeissues>
                                          it/gap/#mimetypeissues>].
                                          While this document elects XHTML-MP as the mark-up of choice for mobile,
                                          it is acknowledged that HTML may represent a viable alternative for
                                          hobbists and semi-professional mobile authors.
                                          Nevertheless, this document discourages developers from adopting HTML as
                                          a mobile mark-up, since the extra effort required by using XHTML MP is
                                          limited when compared to the advantages in terms of rendering speed and
                                          number of devices supported.
                                          It should be noted that the majority of practices in this document will
                                          also apply when HTML is adopted and HTML authors will benefit from
                                          reading this document as well.

                                          Luca

                                          Luca Passani wrote:

                                          >Joe, you are getting it right. GAP is about XHTML-MP, and the one about
                                          >HTML is just a footnote.
                                          >I agree that this is confusing though. Maybe I should do just what I did
                                          >with WML: dedicate a section of GAP to explain why people shouldn't do
                                          HTML.
                                          >
                                          >I'll think about it....
                                          >
                                          >Luca
                                          >
                                          >Joe Bowbeer wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >>I'm confused by the HTML discussion. Perhaps it's time for a summary
                                          >>or a recap - if others are in the same predicament.
                                          >>
                                          >>In my reading of GAP, XHTML-MP is the cornerstone. XHTML-MP is
                                          >>mentioned twice in the abstract.
                                          >>
                                          >>Example from http://www.passani. <http://www.passani.it/gap/> it/gap/
                                          abstract:
                                          >>
                                          >>"This document is a guide about how to get the most out of single
                                          >>non-dinamically [sic] generated XHTML MP pages ..."
                                          >>
                                          >>[oops - note type]
                                          >>
                                          >>That's pretty clear. Beginners need strong guidelines. Specs are good.
                                          >>
                                          >>So where does this HTML discussion fit in? Is it a footnote at the
                                          >>bottom (seems fine to me) or does it make the abstract?
                                          >>
                                          >>(Sorry for the confusion.)
                                          >>
                                          >>--Joe
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>On 11/3/06, Martin Kindler <kindlerm@acm. <mailto:kindlerm%40acm.org> org>
                                          wrote:
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>>Luca,
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>>mmm, it depends on how you define correct. For me "correct" is what
                                          >>>>works, and not what would work if we lived in an ideal work.
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>I agree with you in so far as "that it works" is a mandatory property
                                          >>>of any solution we might advocate. I surely do not like solutions which
                                          >>>are pretty in theory but fail in practice.
                                          >>>
                                          >>>On the other hand there are specifications for mobile browsers which
                                          >>>should be followed and as my experience shows me are followed by
                                          >>>most implementations in the field. So why not propose following these?
                                          >>>
                                          >>>"correct" for me means writing pages for mobile devices using
                                          >>>XHTML MP as markup language. This is the proposal of OMA
                                          >>>and also the message given by .mobi.
                                          >>>
                                          >>>Correctness also includes sending a correct content-type header
                                          >>>(application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml), if possible or one of the others
                                          >>>allowed by the specification (application/xhtml+xml or text/html),
                                          >>>if the correct one is not possible. I have never experienced a
                                          >>>microbrowser who claimed to be XHTML MP compatible to misbehave,
                                          >>>if the correct content-type was sent.
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                                          >>Please fail to read http://groups.
                                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/>
                                          yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.
                                          >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                                          >Please fail to read http://groups.
                                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/>
                                          yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.
                                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >







                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • FunWithKnives
                                          ... Hello and thanks for your refactored implementation! I tracked down a tiny, yet quite serious bug, that made it unable to ever identify a device correctly
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Dec 9, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Murray Brandon
                                            <murray.brandon@...> wrote:

                                            > Hi all, Luca has kindly hosted my refactored java implementation of
                                            > WURFL/WALL:

                                            Hello and thanks for your refactored implementation!

                                            I tracked down a tiny, yet quite serious bug, that made it unable to
                                            ever identify a device correctly as far as I could tell. I figured I'd
                                            share this here.

                                            in net/sourceforge/wurfl/wall/DocumentTag.java, line 133-134

                                            document.setPreferredWurflMarkup(WurflUtils.getWurflPreferredMarkup(userAgent,document.getUserAgent()));

                                            document.setPreferredMarkupCategory(WurflUtils.getMarkupCategory(userAgent,document.getUserAgent(),default_markup));

                                            I changed this to:

                                            document.setPreferredWurflMarkup(WurflUtils.getWurflPreferredMarkup(userAgent,deviceId));

                                            document.setPreferredMarkupCategory(WurflUtils.getMarkupCategory(userAgent,deviceId,default_markup));


                                            Regards,
                                            Henrik
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.