W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009

From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 23:45:08 +0000
Message-Id: <4C10777B-18A1-4698-84D3-B64E1D0641A1@futureplatforms.com>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

In the spirit of the current conversation, do you have any data you  
can reference to back up your assertion that most of those sites are  
mobile already?

Google tells me the pasdarans are the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Are  
you positing a link between them and the W3C now? ;)

On 7 Jan 2009, at 23:05, Luca Passani wrote:

> yes, sure. When you get back to reality, you will realize that  
> 99,84% are HTML documents (some of which may have whatever DTD, but  
> all of which will be invariably handled by the respective tag-soup  
> parsers).
> The remaining 0.16% are in great majority mobile-optimised sites,  
> i.e. exactly the ones that the heuristics intends to positively  
> identify (i.e. my point all the way).
> What remains after you have taken 2% of that 0.16% is a handful of  
> full-web site which are using xhtml+xml for demo purposes.  You can  
> probably also find the site of some XML pasdaran who intends to make  
> a point about XHTML in the face of the reality (someone who is  
> intimately familiar with the complete W3C technology stack, I am  
> sure, but does not need to run a website that profits on the  
> popularity among large audiences...)

--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 23:45:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 January 2009 23:45:46 GMT