- From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:36:24 -0800 (PST)
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Cc: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> It may be worth expanding upon the point that by HTML
> content we mean any content in the HTML family, including
> XHTML but not including WML. I think WML is out of scope of
> this document - but it's worth having a discussion on
> that.
There is no justification to exclude a major component of the mobile Web. Furthermore, WML does include the http-equiv mechanism, so I do not see any problem in including it.
> Hence clause 3 under 4.1.5 and especially 4.1.5.4
Is there any reason why the two first paragraphs have overlapping but divergent formulations? I.e. linked resource vs. included resource, should use the same user-agent field vs. may use the same header fields?
> Mobile compatible and mobile optimized are not the same
> thing are they?
mobile-optimized => for mobile devices only.
mobile-compatible => also for mobile devices (but for other categories of terminals as well).
E.Casais
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:48:47 UTC