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

Re: FYI - "Mobile Web 2009 = Desktop Web 1998"

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:36:23 +0000
Message-ID: <49B037C7.4010709@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, public-bpwg@w3.org
The results are at [1]. I'm acutely aware of this data as I've just 
written a module for the Intro to MWBP course on the safe use of various 
things, including CSS. It's hard to recommend using CSS media types when 
support for it is so uneven.

Phil.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/mth/results?ts=cssmedia

Jo Rabin wrote:
>> should thikn about what they include everywhere. But if some resource
>> (e.g. an image) is display none, then it doesn't get downloaded. Which
> 
> Well, obviously time moves on and browser implementations improve. However, as I recall, when we tested this in the BPWG earlier in our history iirc it was not by any means universally the case that this is so. I expect that Dom has chapter on verse on this, as iirc it was he, as ever, that wrote the test for it.
> 
> Jo
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
>> Sent: 05 March 2009 20:18
>> To: Jo Rabin; Yeliz Yesilada; Bruce Lawson
>> Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: FYI - "Mobile Web 2009 = Desktop Web 1998"
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:06:25 +0100, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>>
>>> Ref Bruce's article: pleased that the work on Shared Web Experiences
>> got
>>> a nice mention. However, I'm really not a big fan of CSS Media
>> Queries.
>>> Seems like a lot of cost and delay can go into downloading stuff that
>>> ultimately has a display:none on it. Why serve stuff in the first
>> place
>>> if it isn't going to be viewed?
>> For content inside the page, that's a fair question (and means people
>> should thikn about what they include everywhere. But if some resource
>> (e.g. an image) is display none, then it doesn't get downloaded. Which
>> is
>> easier for most people than doing some server-side magic to figure out
>> who
>> should get what.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Yeliz Yesilada
>>>> Sent: 05 March 2009 17:02
>>>> To: Bruce Lawson
>>>> Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: FYI - "Mobile Web 2009 = Desktop Web 1998"
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>>
>>>> Great article....This feels like deja vu all over again :)
>>>>
>>>> Yeliz.
>>>> On 5 Mar 2009, at 13:58, Bruce Lawson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:21:18 -0000, <gina@alierra.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I completely agree with Jakob Nielsen in all aspects mentioned,
>>>>> I disagreed with him, and wrote up my personal thoughts at ZDnet
>>>>> http://zi.ma/6460b8
>>>>>
>>>>> . Anyway, I absolutely sure
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> problem will be solved in early future.
>>>>> Yes, I think convergence is rapidly occurring.
>>>>>
>>>>> bruce
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bruce Lawson
>>>>> Web Evangelist
>>>>> www.opera.com (work)
>>>>> www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal)
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>>      je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
>> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

-- 

Phil Archer
W3C Mobile Web Initiative
http://www.w3.org/Mobile/
http://philarcher.org/
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 20:36:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC