At 13:53 2002-03-25, Dirk Groten wrote:
[...]
>3. Since XHTMLMP is strictly written conforming to the XML rules, do not
>expect XHTMLMP browsers to be able to read iHTML markup. Strict XHTMLMP
>browsers will parse the content according to the XHTMLMP DTD and reject
>any non-complying documents (such as missing </p>). Some vendors may
>choose to support non-strict HTML, like Microsoft and Netscape started to
>do on the Internet, but this makes the implementation of the parser more
>complex. So for mobile devices, there will be strict browsers out there
>asking a bit more self-discipline from developers.
Quite well-explained and knowledgable. Good for WAP-Forum...
In practice, we have seen that almost all new WAP 2.0 browsers support
CHTML (although not full iHTML 2/3). This is valid for the browsers from
Nokia, OpenWave, AU-System and Access. But I agree that you could not count
on that it will be supported since it is not a standard.
The support for XHTML Basic/MP, as we experience, is a bit more
complicated, perhaps not som much on the XHTML part in itself, but more on
the side of stylesheets. The browser support for CSS MP is for today a lot
more complicated to grasp. Limited support for CSS and the general demand
for higher knowledge of the developers, indicates that we could expect
content in what could be called XHTML Basic Transitional (which is not a
standard), since this is simple to develop for and supported by many
browsers. That format would basically be an XML-ish version of CHTML.
CHTML may be an ad hoc format used by other operators too, because of the
simplicity. We are currently working with some cases, where no i-mode
operators in their guidelines for third party developers actively propose
CHTML.
CHTML may also be automatically converted to conformant XHTML, if it is not
too weird.
/gustaf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://xped.io | gustaf_at_xpedio.jp | t +46 8 674 50 47 | m +46 70 916 47 47
Received on Mon Mar 25 15:40:48 2002