Hi all, This was big news a year or two ago now, but I just realised that, perhaps, a separate domain space for mobile content isn't particularly evil afterall. Tim Berners-Lee weighed in on this in May 2004 [1], and I do agree with everything outlined in that document -- but there is more.
We're looking at mobile content for the Sunrise Family site, along similar lines to that on the Y!7 Sunrise WAP site [2]. However, this seems to make a great deal of sense for that website (crappy markup on the core Sunrise site notwithstanding) simply because the content has been trimmed down to something... intrinsically usable. I'm quietly a fan of this approach, I think, but would still be interested to hear compelling arguments against it. Obviously, I'd be keen to ensure any WAP content we produced was valid, just so there's less a pathetic mobile parser can give up on -- for example, I disagree with Yahoo!7's decision to ditch the doctype in their WAP pages, even if WAP data is still 3c/KB or whatever it is. If you're using WAP, you can probably afford it, plus they've used images for bullet points. A list would surely suffice! So I guess this is more of a content-based question. But the subdomain thing comes into it, too, as well as the fact that this equates to providing different versions for different devices. 1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD 2. http://wap.yahoo.com.au/sunrise/ -- note the evil subdomain Regards, Josh -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
