Yeah there are many ways of dealing with such situations ... and URl
rewriting is definitely one of them ... still it requires a bit of
coding :) ... even the approach above would have been implemented
through URL rewriters.
I'm not at all pushing for this as I don't have a strong case for it.
B
In the case of large swaths of a site being different, I'd opt for URL
re-writing to send the WAP device to a parallel set of URLs.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Marius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The point of this would not be a recommended "cross browser" artifact
> but in a sense
Hi,
The point of this would not be a recommended "cross browser" artifact
but in a sense a way to deal with situations like mobile phone version
of a site witch sometimes needs be very simple comparing with PC
browsers. In such situations such "fragile" approach would be quite
handy (as I hit som
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Tim Perrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, I wouldn't like this way of doing it. It seems too fragile.
> Experience tells us that its usually only IE that has stupid quirks
> (and will probably continue to do so), so I would see that level of
> handling the b
IMHO, I wouldn't like this way of doing it. It seems too fragile.
Experience tells us that its usually only IE that has stupid quirks
(and will probably continue to do so), so I would see that level of
handling the browser issues to be problematic.
Also, at a XHTML level, its often not possible t
If there is more room for an extra suggestion ...
As we know we're using prefixing for internationalization for instance
let's say we have mypage.html. If we have mypage_es-ES.html lift will
pick up the right markup per Locale. Perhaps we could also apply this
for browsers like:
mypage__-.html
Viktor Klang wrote:
>
> For mobile browsers, are you talking ones that use WML? (Does anyone
> still use that?) For something like that, I think you could use the
> Accept HTTP header. User Agent is going to be very tricky.
>
>
> Perhaps you want to have a more light-weighted page f
Cool.
On Sep 26, 7:40 pm, David Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius wrote:
> > +1.
>
> > So is anyone taking ownership on this? ... I could add this support
> > within a week or two maybe.
>
> I'd rather you continue to work on the Record/Field stuff.
>
> Can we get another taker on this p
Marius wrote:
> +1.
>
> So is anyone taking ownership on this? ... I could add this support
> within a week or two maybe.
>
I'd rather you continue to work on the Record/Field stuff.
Can we get another taker on this project? Tyler... are you too busy
with the book? Jorge... got time? Some
+1.
So is anyone taking ownership on this? ... I could add this support
within a week or two maybe.
Br's,
Marius
On Sep 26, 6:54 pm, "David Pollak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Tim Perrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Am I being dumb here - could we not just
Not the most popular option out there but I generally detect IE6 from the
agent string and redirect to the Get Firefox page ;)
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Marius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Charles ... this is not only about JS level. One may simply click a
> link or submit a simple form
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Tim Perrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Am I being dumb here - could we not just run some checks on the user-
> agent header and respond appropriately?
>
> It would be very cool if SHtml was browser aware.
Yes... that's what I'm suggesting. Right now, I think
It would be nice to have some control over this. I work on a site
where we forward users to the iPhone version of the site when they
access / and their user agent matches the iPhone (or iPod Touch) user
agent. But, we also provide them with a link to view the full version
of the site.
This is j
Very true Viktor.
Some mobile terminals like some of Nokia S40 series have both service
browsers and web browsers (for some awkward reason). Service browsers
even if they are capable of WAP or internet connectivity their support
of XHTML is very limited. There is an XHTML-MP standard out there.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles F. Munat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah, I forgot that you were talking server-side. Hmm. I'll have to think
> about this.
>
> For mobile browsers, are you talking ones that use WML? (Does anyone
> still use that?) For something like that, I think you c
Ah, I forgot that you were talking server-side. Hmm. I'll have to think
about this.
For mobile browsers, are you talking ones that use WML? (Does anyone
still use that?) For something like that, I think you could use the
Accept HTTP header. User Agent is going to be very tricky.
But for somet
Charles ... this is not only about JS level. One may simply click a
link or submit a simple form (with NO JS involved) and lift should
probably be aware of browser type it can correct some browser specific
idiosyncrasies in the resulting markup. Certain applications may need
for instance to detect
Isnt object detection client side?
On Sep 26, 10:25 am, "Charles F. Munat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Browser detection is a really bad idea, and I would recommend avoiding
> it at all costs. A much better solution is object detection.
>
> Here's one pretty good description about why this is so
Browser detection is a really bad idea, and I would recommend avoiding
it at all costs. A much better solution is object detection.
Here's one pretty good description about why this is so:
http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/objectdetection.html
Here's another:
http://www.quirksmod
Am I being dumb here - could we not just run some checks on the user-
agent header and respond appropriately?
It would be very cool if SHtml was browser aware.
Cheers
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
Duh. I should stop posting before 7am.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM, David Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Derek Chen-Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> jQuery has the jquery.browser and other user agent methods (under the
>> utilities section of th
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Derek Chen-Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> jQuery has the jquery.browser and other user agent methods (under the
> utilities section of the docs: http://docs.jquery.com/Utilities). If
> that's not enough, there's this under the MIT license:
>
> http://davecardwe
jQuery has the jquery.browser and other user agent methods (under the
utilities section of the docs: http://docs.jquery.com/Utilities). If that's
not enough, there's this under the MIT license:
http://davecardwell.co.uk/javascript/jquery/plugins/jquery-browserdetect/
Derek
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 a
Tim Perrett wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Just a quick issue (or what seems to be an issue) that i've come
> accross. If you do the following:
>
> SHtml.submit("Register", save) % ("type" -> "image")
> % ("src" -> "img/button-
> submit-registration.gif")
>
>
> IMHO, it also feels messy setting those kind of presentation
> attributes in the snippet - Ideally you would want to let designers
> choose if it was a regular style submit button, or an image. Using
> attributes perhaps? (where :form: is the bound namespace)
>
>
>
Check out the mixinAttributes
25 matches
Mail list logo
