On Dec 8, 2005, at 12:21, Nick May wrote:
> I understand. I think.
> But this is at the cost of delivering the WHOLE kaboodle to the
> handset, then choosing which bits to display. The basic "download" is
> the same for both desktop and mobile If I understand correctly. You
> just don't see parts of it...
> In practice, isn't this just a "third cut by any other name" - with a
> lot of the work of a third cut (all the layout work) with none of the
> advantages of a smaller download that a genuine third cut would have?
> It seems a kluge, basically. In-elegant. Wasteful. A dog on its hind
> legs. Fine for smallish screens accessing data over wifi, but not
> really suitable for handsets accessing data over a phone network.
> Or have I misunderstood something?
See my rant at http://pukupi.com/blog/view.php?blog=58
The media property is not a byte saving tool although mobile browsers
shouldn't download image content within display:none blocks. It is
tempting because you can forget about device detection but it is not
a solution in Japan until Docomo pulls up its CSS socks and we are
all on unlimited 3G bandwidth plans.
mobile web gear | pukupi.com | 34°40'n 135°30'e
Received on Thu Dec 8 07:42:46 2005