On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Ken Chang wrote:
> one reason DoCoMo selected the C-HTML I guess was that they didn't
> expect i-mode would become so popular to bring down the network.
One of the folks in charge of the project stated right out in an interview
that close compatability with standard HTML (or as "standard" as it ever gets)
was a, possibly the, primary reason for the choice of CHTML. He said that
it makes life easier for developers, and I've explained why, in detail, in
a previous post.
So there's no question that CHTML was, at least in part, a technical
decision, and it was felt for several reasons to be technically suprior
to WAP for this particular application.
If you really don't believe me, I could try and track down the
Iinterview, suppose. I believe the URL was posted on this list within
Ithe past year or so.
> but this problem would have been easily solved if au/KDDI could have
> do some developments and publish the codes free.
Not really. For example, having a bunch of C code to deal with certain
WML issues does not help me if I have a large test suite written in Java
using HttpUnit. Or worse yet, with custom, in-house code.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs_at_cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.NetBSD.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
Received on Fri Oct 10 07:21:37 2003