Nick, parts of my reply to Curt are also relevant here - not going to
repeat them in order to keep the discussion clear.
> I think I disagree with you because I have a STRONGER sense of URI
> integrity than you offer, arising out of a rather stricter sense of
> content identity than seems to be implicit in your postings.
:-)
> Or are you merely suggesting "this might be a good thing for trivial
> websites"?
>
OK, just to clarify my thoughts:
1. websites without heavy images, loads of text or complex navigation:
* use XHTML+CSS and you're basically set
2. more complex websites that require a different IA when viewed on a
small screen:
* use XHTML+CSS for the desktop version, and XHTML Basic for the
mobile version (1 mobile version, not 3!).
* you and others would offer the mobile version on a different URI,
while I'm a bit reluctant to do so. But, I'm also not completely
against it: on http://andreas.web-graphics.com/mobile/p5.html I wrote
that in certain cases "[...] creating a separate (standards compliant)
mobile version hosted on a different URI is probably the best solution
for the time being." However, I'm definitely against a 1 desktop + 3
mobile URI scenario.
3. for long texts:
* put the text online in chunks (XHTML+CSS) and offer a PDF version
of the complete text (?) OR put the complete text online (XHTML+CSS)
and offer a mobile version cut in pieces (XHTMLBasic).
* mobile and non-mobile URIs cannot but be different
> If so - ah - yes - if the IA allows (and that will be based on device
> capability) .... But never dumb down the desktop website just to make
> it happen.
I know what you mean - I'm also not in favor of dumbing down desktop
websites. However, switching to web standards and keeping mobile users
in mind when creating the site (just as you keep in mind some SEO
techniques and accessibility principles) can make a lot of sites
reside in the first category, I believe.
Andreas
--
http://akira.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/andreas/blog/
Received on Fri Dec 9 21:33:49 2005