XHTML and mobile phones.

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 25, 2003.

  1. 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/design/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
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Luigi Donatello Asero

    brucie Guest

    In post <UgfUa.17625$>
    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/0-7483.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/mobilitywor.../wap_tool_r380sc_terminal_simulator_final_rel

    wap specification:
    http://www1.wapforum.org/tech/documents/WAP-193-WMLScript-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/articles/i-Mode/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/
     
    brucie, Jul 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "brucie" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:vqmwo04y1e9f$...
    > In post <UgfUa.17625$>
    > 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
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 26, 2003
    #3
  4. Luigi Donatello Asero

    brucie Guest

    In post <YdvUa.21722$>
    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/
     
    brucie, Jul 27, 2003
    #4
  5. "brucie" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:ywytqtj4cda5$...
    > In post <YdvUa.21722$>
    > 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, isn´t it?


    - -
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)




    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 27, 2003
    #5
  6. "brucie" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:1ilcdx9g8431v$...
    > In post <YdvUa.21722$>
    > 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 isn´t 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
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Luigi Donatello Asero

    brucie Guest

    In post <lqQUa.21839$>
    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 isn´t 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/
     
    brucie, Jul 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Luigi Donatello Asero

    brucie Guest

    In post <IkQUa.21838$>
    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, isn´t 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/
     
    brucie, Jul 27, 2003
    #8
  9. Luigi Donatello Asero

    brucie Guest

    In post <Hq_Ua.17847$>
    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/
     
    brucie, Jul 28, 2003
    #9
  10. "brucie" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > In post <Hq_Ua.17847$>
    > 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
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 28, 2003
    #10

  11. > yes because you are not sending it with an XML/XHTML mime. you are
    > sending it as text/html so user agents process it as HTML.
    >
    > if you author XHTML and want the user agent to process it as XHTML
    > send it with an XHTML mime: application/xhtml+xml (should) or
    > application/xml (may) or text/xml (may) *and* you will need to re-do
    > your pages to be XHTML not HTML compatible because user agents are not
    > required to follow HTML compatibility guidelines when served with an
    > application/xhtml+xml mime.


    Should I write
    <meta http-equiv="content-type"
    content="xhtml+xmlmime";charset=iso-8859-1" /> ?




    - -
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)




    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 28, 2003
    #11
  12. Luigi Donatello Asero

    brucie Guest

    In post <RN%Ua.17854$>
    Luigi Donatello Asero said...

    >> yes because you are not sending it with an XML/XHTML mime. you are
    >> sending it as text/html so user agents process it as HTML.
    >>
    >> if you author XHTML and want the user agent to process it as XHTML
    >> send it with an XHTML mime: application/xhtml+xml (should) or
    >> application/xml (may) or text/xml (may) *and* you will need to re-do
    >> your pages to be XHTML not HTML compatible because user agents are not
    >> required to follow HTML compatibility guidelines when served with an
    >> application/xhtml+xml mime.


    > Should I write
    > <meta http-equiv="content-type"
    > content="xhtml+xmlmime";charset=iso-8859-1" /> ?


    no. http-equiv meta elements should not be/are not recognized or
    included in documents served as application/xhtml+xml or
    application/xml. you need to configure the server to send the correct
    mime and charset (XML processors are only required to read UTF-8 or
    UTF-16 encodings)


    --
    brucie a. blackford. 28/July/2003 12:27:07 pm kilo.
    http://loser.brucies.com/
     
    brucie, Jul 28, 2003
    #12
  13. Luigi Donatello Asero

    brucie Guest

    In post <1lbir4lork97v$>
    brucie said...

    >> Should I write
    >> <meta http-equiv="content-type"
    >> content="xhtml+xmlmime";charset=iso-8859-1" /> ?


    > no. http-equiv meta elements should not be/are not recognized or
    > included in documents served as application/xhtml+xml or
    > application/xml. you need to configure the server to send the correct
    > mime and charset (XML processors are only required to read UTF-8 or
    > UTF-16 encodings)


    and IIRC you should also use a text declaration at the beginning of
    your documents. e.g: <?xml encoding="UTF-8"?>. i cant remember if its
    "must" or if its just a "should".


    --
    brucie a. blackford. 28/July/2003 01:00:06 pm kilo.
    http://loser.brucies.com/
     
    brucie, Jul 28, 2003
    #13
  14. "brucie" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:19t4km51bxfyi$...
    > In post <bT_Ua.21903$>
    > Luigi Donatello Asero said...
    >
    > >> it would make much more sense to send HTML to HTML supporting user
    > >> agents and only send XHTML to XHTML supporting user agents.

    >
    > > I suppose that I would need ASP to generate a sever-based page, wouldn´t
    > > I ?

    >
    > any server side language or configure your server to serve the
    > appropriate documents if you have separate versions.


    I do not have my own server, so it depends on what my webhost offers and on
    which price. If the price is high, may-be it is not convenient for me to
    have a server side language or may-be it is good toi change webhost.
    Which kind of platform and softwares do I need to use ASP? May I have a
    server side language by CGI?
    By the way, the page www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html validates as
    HTML 4.01 strict, now.
    Do you think that it is really HTML 4.01 strict or it pretends to do it?


    - -
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)




    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/traduzioni.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 28, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JasonC

    Re: J2ME and Mobile Phones.

    JasonC, Apr 7, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    696
    Darryl L. Pierce
    Apr 11, 2004
  2. Alexander Willner
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,879
    Alexander Willner
    Dec 9, 2004
  3. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    836
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  4. ssgg

    GET FREE CELL PHONES and CAMERA PHONES!

    ssgg, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    335
  5. chen selina
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,400
    chen selina
    Jul 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page