Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > XHTML and mobile phones.

Reply
Thread Tools

XHTML and mobile phones.

 
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
I am wondering whether XHTML is compatible with the technology which mobile
phones, use more than HTML is.
Please have a look at the following pages:
http://www.littlespringsdesign.com/d...xhtmlinfo.html
http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xhtml-basic-testimonial
Is it better to create each page of a website in 2 versions one in WAP and
another in XHTML, in order to make it accessibile both to the mobile phones
and PC?
Which tutorial do you recommend for WAP?

- -
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
Please do not answer this post by e-mail.

http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/valkommen.html







 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
In post <UgfUa.17625$(E-Mail Removed)>
Luigi Donatello Asero said...

> I am wondering whether XHTML is compatible with the technology which mobile
> phones, use more than HTML is.


it depends on the device and there are thousands and thousands used by
about 200 million people world wide to access the net. but if you want
your site accessible to mobile devices use a mobile protocol.

WAP/WML tutorials
http://www.w3schools.com/wap/default.asp
http://www.freewebmasterhelp.com/tutorials/wml/
http://webmonkey.com/99/20/index2a.html?tw=design
http://builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/....html?tag=dir1

WAP simulators/editors
http://www.pyweb.com/tools/
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tools/emulator/
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tools/simulator/
http://www.yourwap.com/marketing/en/6/6_1/6_1.php
http://www.forum.nokia.com/main/1,6566,1_1_30,00.html
http://www.ericsson.com/mobilityworl...ator_final_rel

wap specification:
http://www1.wapforum.org/tech/docume...20000324-a.pdf

iMode - Japanese version of GPRS/WAP
http://www.cellular.co.za/imode.htm

imode versus wap
http://www.eurotechnology.com/imode/faq-wap.html

imode FAQ
http://archive.devx.com/wireless/art.../i-ModeFAQ.asp

WAP/WML/imode/SMS FAQ
http://www.thewirelessfaq.com/

Converting HTML to WML on the fly
http://wap.z-y-g-o.com/tools/imode2wap.php3

mobile device user agent strings
http://www.thewirelessfaq.com/uacap.asp?action=all#all

WAP and imode are Dead. Long Live (OMA)
http://www.cellular.co.za/technologies/forums/oma.htm
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/

mobile opera
http://www.opera.com/products/smartphone/

--
brucie a. blackford. 26/July/2003 07:51:53 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2003

"brucie" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:vqmwo04y1e9f$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In post <UgfUa.17625$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Luigi Donatello Asero said...
>
> > I am wondering whether XHTML is compatible with the technology which

mobile
> > phones, use more than HTML is.

>
> it depends on the device and there are thousands and thousands used by
> about 200 million people world wide to access the net. but if you want
> your site accessible to mobile devices use a mobile protocol.



Thank you very much for your answer. Can I make the site accessible to
mobile devices and PC at the same time using a mobile protocol or do I need
two versions of each page, one for mobile devices where I use a mobile
protocol and another for PC?
Does XHTML Basic also use a mobile protocol? Do you know whether XHTML
Basic is compatible with many mobile phones? Is XHTML Basic compatible with
some mobile phones and PC at the same time?
The following page was written a while ago as far as I understand. What is
the situation now in july 2003 about XHTML Basic accessibility?
http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xhtml-basic-testimonial
Is XHTML 1.0 Strict more or less compatible than XHTML Basic with both
mobile devices and PCs?








- -
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)




http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html




 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
In post <YdvUa.21722$(E-Mail Removed)>
Luigi Donatello Asero said...

>> it depends on the device and there are thousands and thousands used by
>> about 200 million people world wide to access the net. but if you want
>> your site accessible to mobile devices use a mobile protocol.


> Thank you very much for your answer. Can I make the site accessible to
> mobile devices and PC at the same time using a mobile protocol or do I need
> two versions of each page, one for mobile devices where I use a mobile
> protocol and another for PC?


generate the site/language required on request (via accept headers)
rather then having two or more different versions. if doing a mobile
friendly site i would do both i-mode (cHTML) and WML.

if the device sent accept headers for all three (HTML/cHTML/WML) i
would probably send HTML and ask for their preferred protocol. same if
they accepted cHTML or WML.

> Does XHTML Basic also use a mobile protocol? Do you know whether XHTML
> Basic is compatible with many mobile phones? Is XHTML Basic compatible with
> some mobile phones and PC at the same time?


stop trying to guess what a device may accept and generate the markup
required by what it says it accepts.

--
brucie a. blackford. 27/July/2003 11:24:22 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003

"brucie" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:ywytqtj4cda5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In post <YdvUa.21722$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Luigi Donatello Asero said...
>
> > Is XHTML 1.0 Strict more or less compatible than XHTML Basic with both
> > mobile devices and PCs?

>
> the only browser on the win platform that support XHTML are those that
> use the gecko engine, mainly mozilla and NS. all others only support
> HTML so i'm not sure why you're using XHTML in the first place.



As far as I understood the contents of
http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xhtml-basic-testimonial
the use of XHTML Basic would let a site compatible with some mobile
devices, would it not?
But XHTML 1.0 Strict is nearer to XHTML Basic than HTML, it could
have been a good step to begin with testing XHTML 1.0 Strict could it not?
Do you mean that Mozilla and NS are the only browsers which support all
kinds of XHTML?
I do not seem the only one who used XHTML, actually. But HTML 4.01
transitional is compatible with a larger number of browsers than
HTML 4.01 Strict, isnīt it?


- -
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)




http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html








 
Reply With Quote
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003

"brucie" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:1ilcdx9g8431v$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In post <YdvUa.21722$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Luigi Donatello Asero said...
>
> >> it depends on the device and there are thousands and thousands used by
> >> about 200 million people world wide to access the net. but if you want
> >> your site accessible to mobile devices use a mobile protocol.

>
> > Thank you very much for your answer. Can I make the site accessible to
> > mobile devices and PC at the same time using a mobile protocol or do I

need
> > two versions of each page, one for mobile devices where I use a mobile
> > protocol and another for PC?

>
> generate the site/language required on request (via accept headers)
> rather then having two or more different versions. if doing a mobile
> friendly site i would do both i-mode (cHTML) and WML.
>
> if the device sent accept headers for all three (HTML/cHTML/WML) i
> would probably send HTML and ask for their preferred protocol. same if
> they accepted cHTML or WML.
>
> > Does XHTML Basic also use a mobile protocol? Do you know whether XHTML
> > Basic is compatible with many mobile phones? Is XHTML Basic compatible

with
> > some mobile phones and PC at the same time?

>
> stop trying to guess what a device may accept and generate the markup
> required by what it says it accepts.


How do I generate a site on request? That is server-based isnīt it?
If it is server-based may-be that this is not the best solution for me.

- -
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)




http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html




 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
In post <lqQUa.21839$(E-Mail Removed)>
Luigi Donatello Asero said...

>> generate the site/language required on request (via accept headers)
>> rather then having two or more different versions. if doing a mobile
>> friendly site i would do both i-mode (cHTML) and WML.
>>
>> if the device sent accept headers for all three (HTML/cHTML/WML) i
>> would probably send HTML and ask for their preferred protocol. same if
>> they accepted cHTML or WML.


> How do I generate a site on request?


use the server side language of your choice.

> That is server-based isnīt it?


yes

> If it is server-based may-be that this is not the best solution for me.


server side is the only way to do it

--
brucie a. blackford. 28/July/2003 07:13:20 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
In post <IkQUa.21838$(E-Mail Removed)>
Luigi Donatello Asero said...

>> the only browser on the win platform that support XHTML are those that
>> use the gecko engine, mainly mozilla and NS. all others only support
>> HTML so i'm not sure why you're using XHTML in the first place.


> As far as I understood the contents of
> http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xhtml-basic-testimonial
> the use of XHTML Basic would let a site compatible with some mobile
> devices, would it not?


the point i'm trying to make is that there are thousands upon
thousands of different mobile devices and you don't know what language
they support until the device makes a request from your server and
says what it supports. you then return the language it supports. you
cant just throw a site together with the language of your choice and
hope the device will support it. there are just waay too many
different mobile devices to do that.

> Do you mean that Mozilla and NS are the only browsers which support all
> kinds of XHTML?


no. on the win platform gecko browsers are the only browsers that
support XHTML period. those browsers are the only ones you should be
sending XHTML to. all others you should be sending them HTML or using
the "HTML compatibility guidelines" so you can send XHTML to HTML user
agents but if you do that then its not really XHTML and user agents do
not process it as XML.

> But HTML 4.01 transitional is compatible with a larger number of browsers
> than HTML 4.01 Strict, isnīt it?


no, more likely the other way around. the strict DTD "excludes the
presentation attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out as
support for style sheets matures." so there is a greater chance of a
user agent supporting the strict DTD than a transitional DTD with all
the extra elements and attributes it contains.

--
brucie a. blackford. 28/July/2003 07:23:16 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2003
In post <Hq_Ua.17847$(E-Mail Removed)>
Luigi Donatello Asero said...

>> no. on the win platform gecko browsers are the only browsers that
>> support XHTML period. those browsers are the only ones you should be
>> sending XHTML to. all others you should be sending them HTML or using
>> the "HTML compatibility guidelines" so you can send XHTML to HTML user
>> agents but if you do that then its not really XHTML and user agents do
>> not process it as XML.


> If I understand you properly, you mean for example that the site
> www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/traduzioni.html
> is processed by Internet Explorer as HTML even if it validates as XHTML 1.0
> Strict.


all user agents are processing it as HTML because you are sending it
as HTML, it is not really XHTML. your page is HTML pretending to be
XHTML pretending to be HTML.

it would make much more sense to send HTML to HTML supporting user
agents and only send XHTML to XHTML supporting user agents.

--
brucie a. blackford. 28/July/2003 10:59:43 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2003

"brucie" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In post <Hq_Ua.17847$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Luigi Donatello Asero said...
>
> >> no. on the win platform gecko browsers are the only browsers that
> >> support XHTML period. those browsers are the only ones you should be
> >> sending XHTML to. all others you should be sending them HTML or using
> >> the "HTML compatibility guidelines" so you can send XHTML to HTML user
> >> agents but if you do that then its not really XHTML and user agents do
> >> not process it as XML.

>
> > If I understand you properly, you mean for example that the site
> > www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/traduzioni.html
> > is processed by Internet Explorer as HTML even if it validates as XHTML

1.0
> > Strict.

>
> all user agents are processing it as HTML because you are sending it
> as HTML, it is not really XHTML. your page is HTML pretending to be
> XHTML pretending to be HTML.


Twice pretending, what do you mean now? And why do I send a page as HTML
which
validates as XHTML 1.0 Strict, yet? Do you mean that even gecko browsers
process it as HTML?


- -
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)




http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html






 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPhone4,iPhone3,Ipad,Apple Mobile,Blackberry Mobile,HTC Mobile,LGMobile,Motorola Mobile,Nokia Mobile,Samsung Mobile chen selina C++ 0 07-13-2010 08:53 AM



Advertisments