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

WMLScript

Expand Messages
  • Luca Passani
    People, I am seriously thinking of removing the wmlscript related capabilities:
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      People, I am seriously thinking of removing the wmlscript related
      capabilities:


      <capability name="wmlscript_1_1" value="true"/>
      <capability name="wmlscript_1_2" value="true"/>

      Objections?

      wrt
      <capability name="wml_1_1" value="true"/>
      <capability name="wml_1_2" value="true"/>
      <capability name="wml_1_3" value="true"/>

      I wouldn't mind to just keep

      <capability name="wml_1_1" value="true"/>

      I am not aware of anyone who optimizes their WML apps to this level....I
      can give this a bit more time

      Thanks

      Luca
    • Paschal Nee
      Sounds sensible to me on both fronts. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Sounds sensible to me on both fronts.

        On 01/07/07, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
        >
        > People, I am seriously thinking of removing the wmlscript related
        > capabilities:
        >
        > <capability name="wmlscript_1_1" value="true"/>
        > <capability name="wmlscript_1_2" value="true"/>
        >
        > Objections?
        >
        > wrt
        > <capability name="wml_1_1" value="true"/>
        > <capability name="wml_1_2" value="true"/>
        > <capability name="wml_1_3" value="true"/>
        >
        > I wouldn't mind to just keep
        >
        > <capability name="wml_1_1" value="true"/>
        >
        > I am not aware of anyone who optimizes their WML apps to this level....I
        > can give this a bit more time
        >
        > Thanks
        >
        > Luca
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Miha Valencic
        Luca, if I understand you correctly, we would keep the wml_1_1, wml_1_2 and wml_1_3 capabilities and we would only remove wmlscript* capabilites? ... [Non-text
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Luca, if I understand you correctly, we would keep the wml_1_1, wml_1_2 and
          wml_1_3 capabilities and we would only remove wmlscript* capabilites?

          On 7/1/07, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
          >
          > People, I am seriously thinking of removing the wmlscript related
          > capabilities:
          >
          >
          > <capability name="wmlscript_1_1" value="true"/>
          > <capability name="wmlscript_1_2" value="true"/>
          >
          > Objections?
          >
          > wrt
          > <capability name="wml_1_1" value="true"/>
          > <capability name="wml_1_2" value="true"/>
          > <capability name="wml_1_3" value="true"/>
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Luca Passani
          that s one possibility. The other possibility is just to keep wml_1_1. I don t think many optimize their markup based on different WML versions (with the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            that's one possibility. The other possibility is just to keep wml_1_1. I
            don't think many optimize their markup based on different WML versions
            (with the possible exception of those who differentiate between Openwave
            and non-Openwave WML)

            Luca

            Miha Valencic wrote:
            > Luca, if I understand you correctly, we would keep the wml_1_1, wml_1_2 and
            > wml_1_3 capabilities and we would only remove wmlscript* capabilites?
            >
            > On 7/1/07, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
            >
            >> People, I am seriously thinking of removing the wmlscript related
            >> capabilities:
            >>
            >>
            >> <capability name="wmlscript_1_1" value="true"/>
            >> <capability name="wmlscript_1_2" value="true"/>
            >>
            >> Objections?
            >>
            >> wrt
            >> <capability name="wml_1_1" value="true"/>
            >> <capability name="wml_1_2" value="true"/>
            >> <capability name="wml_1_3" value="true"/>
            >>
            >>
          • Miha Valencic
            Well, for one, our rendering engine uses those capabilities... I ll talk with our developers and see if there are much dependencies on those values. Miha ...
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, for one, our rendering engine uses those capabilities... I'll talk
              with our developers and see if there are much dependencies on those values.

              Miha

              On 7/2/07, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > that's one possibility. The other possibility is just to keep wml_1_1. I
              > don't think many optimize their markup based on different WML versions
              > (with the possible exception of those who differentiate between Openwave
              > and non-Openwave WML)
              >
              > Luca
              >
              > Miha Valencic wrote:
              > > Luca, if I understand you correctly, we would keep the wml_1_1, wml_1_2
              > and
              > > wml_1_3 capabilities and we would only remove wmlscript* capabilites?
              > >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Luca Passani
              ... I understand. It s not like I need to remove those capabilities, but I think we should use available resources on what people really need. Luca
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Miha Valencic wrote:
                > Well, for one, our rendering engine uses those capabilities... I'll talk
                > with our developers and see if there are much dependencies on those values.
                >
                I understand. It's not like I need to remove those capabilities, but I
                think we should use available resources on what people really need.

                Luca
              • Laurent Perez
                ... Aren t accesskeys only available since wml 1.2 ? If you only keep wml 1.1 and the access_key_support is wrong in wurfl, then developers who rely on 1.2 dtd
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  > that's one possibility. The other possibility is just to keep wml_1_1. I
                  > don't think many optimize their markup based on different WML versions
                  > (with the possible exception of those who differentiate between Openwave
                  > and non-Openwave WML)

                  Aren't accesskeys only available since wml 1.2 ? If you only keep wml
                  1.1 and the access_key_support is wrong in wurfl, then developers who
                  rely on 1.2 dtd (instead of ak wurfl attribute) to assume they can use
                  accesskeys may run into trouble.

                  laurent

                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Luca
                  >
                  > Miha Valencic wrote:
                  > > Luca, if I understand you correctly, we would keep the wml_1_1, wml_1_2 and
                  > > wml_1_3 capabilities and we would only remove wmlscript* capabilites?
                  > >
                  > > On 7/1/07, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >> People, I am seriously thinking of removing the wmlscript related
                  > >> capabilities:
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> <capability name="wmlscript_1_1" value="true"/>
                  > >> <capability name="wmlscript_1_2" value="true"/>
                  > >>
                  > >> Objections?
                  > >>
                  > >> wrt
                  > >> <capability name="wml_1_1" value="true"/>
                  > >> <capability name="wml_1_2" value="true"/>
                  > >> <capability name="wml_1_3" value="true"/>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  <a href="http://in-pocket.blogspot.com">http://in-pocket.blogspot.com
                  - Mobile world, technology and more</a>
                • Luca Passani
                  ... Do you use accesskeys in WML? is there anyone who does this here? What you say is absolutely correct, but, as with everything else WURFL, I need to use
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Laurent Perez wrote:
                    > Aren't accesskeys only available since wml 1.2 ? If you only keep wml
                    > 1.1 and the access_key_support is wrong in wurfl, then developers who
                    > rely on 1.2 dtd (instead of ak wurfl attribute) to assume they can use
                    > accesskeys may run into trouble.
                    >
                    Do you use accesskeys in WML? is there anyone who does this here?

                    What you say is absolutely correct, but, as with everything else WURFL,
                    I need to use resources on what people really need/use.

                    I'll post this on the WURFL site and wait a few days before I do the change

                    Luca
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.