• To: Bill Kearney <wkearney@s...>
• Subject: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004weblog items?)
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:06:35 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <01ce01c4d3d3$90aa5a20$200ca8c0@w...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D102767165@R...> <41A753A0.60909@e...> <01ce01c4d3d3$90aa5a20$200ca8c0@w...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Macintosh/20041103)

Bill Kearney wrote:
> Finally, if people think browser compatibility on desktops is bad, try
> phones.  If they have some common denominator it's one that [expletive deleted] worse than
> plain HTML did on NS2.  Having a way to save bandwidth bits only to end up
> there just isn't lighting anyone's fire.

Hmm, sure, in fact that's probably in a nutshell the summary of the 
Mobile Web Initiative workshop that took place last week.

But don't worry, the incentive to get much better content than that on 
mobile devices is extremely high (and in part already there for those in 
the least mobile-retarded areas of the planet). I'm talking about what 
happens when that content grows much, much more, knowing that that's soon.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004weblog items?)
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by Date: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by thread: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread