W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: BP2 Name Problem: Delivery context assumed not stated?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:13:59 +0200
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t82w9l0bwxe0ny@pc099.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:48:29 +0200, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote:

> Being a broken record here, but this is also my understanding, and an
> understanding that seems to underpin the document. This is why I am
> not sure it was wise to decide that there is no ADC, because there is
> in this doc, even if not called by name. I'll call it "iPhone-ish".
...
> Charles you rightly say, well, the DDC was a fallback profile for when
> you don't know anything, and so had to be explicitly named. This doc
> is about things you can do if you know the device to be more capable
> somehow. And you rightly say, the important question is "how"? Since
> the doc doesn't mention this and nobody seems to mind too much, I
> suggest that it implies we all think the BPs are already assuming an
> iPhone-ish device.

With about 100 million copies of Opera out there in the last two years,  
and tens of millions of Opera mini 4 out there, I guess that I am thinking  
that yes, we have a lot of browsers that are more in the iPhone league  
than in the DDC league even if we discount a few million iPhones...

I am not thinking of a particular delivery context. iPhone's lack of a  
cache and low-greade network means that page size is actually still  
important to it in terms of speed, a limitation that Opera mini doesn't  
suffer at all. Mini has a cursor, but handles a bit less javascript-based  
interaction overall. The new Opera mobile includes native SVG (and it was  
already supported thanks to the Ikivo plgin on mobiles, one of several  
widely distributed SVG plugins making a couple of hundred milion phones  
SVG capable but not including the iPhone. Blazer, the s60 Nokia browser,  
Netfront and others have other differences among themselves and with  
"Dan's darling". The new generation of phones are about big enough for  
people to put a slimmed-down gecko on them, which introduces yet another  
set of capabilities, and quirks resulting from its design.

I really don't think we will get far with the idea of any particular  
delivery context - Opera will object if someone says "it should be [insert  
a competitor]" and if we proposed Opera mini or Opera mobile I would  
expect the idea to get shot down in flames.

So BP2 really becomes how to adapt content to take advantage of  
capabilities - and needs to be clear about how you determine whether or  
not you have those capabilities. If we are working from some preconceived  
notion of what the target browser is, we are making a very big mistake -  
we should be working with an assumption of the kinds of things that phones  
have available, which is a broader set but also makes us consider  
carefully each option and realise that phones about the DDC level are  
still around, and people are still using the original outdated browser on  
them - and as long as operators in particular make it difficult to change  
the browser, this will be the case.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 09:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC