Re: WML support.

2007-10-06 Thread David J. Ruck
On 6 Oct 2007 Dave Higton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Jess Hampshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> To be honest I dislike sites which rely on javascript. > A couple of years ago I bought the O'Reilly book on Javascript > (which also covers ECMAscript a

Re: WML support.

2007-10-06 Thread Dave Higton
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jess Hampshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be honest I dislike sites which rely on javascript. A couple of years ago I bought the O'Reilly book on Javascript (which also covers ECMAscript and Jscript). I can certainly see the usefulness of Javascript;

Re: WML support.

2007-10-06 Thread Jess Hampshire
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 18:45 +0100, Jess Hampshire wrote: > >> > seen with any type of browsing at all these days have normal web >> > browsers - and if they don't come with one, they can usually run Opera >> > m

Re: WML support.

2007-10-06 Thread Rob Kendrick
On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 18:45 +0100, Jess Hampshire wrote: > > seen with any type of browsing at all these days have normal web > > browsers - and if they don't come with one, they can usually run Opera > > mini. And with good reason: WAP's awful. > > It may be awful, but not as bad as trying to

Re: WML support.

2007-10-06 Thread Jess Hampshire
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David J. Ruck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5 Oct 2007 Jess Hampshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> "David J. Ruck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> You mean open up the tiny fraction of sites which provid

Re: WML support.

2007-10-05 Thread David J. Ruck
On 5 Oct 2007 Jess Hampshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "David J. Ruck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You mean open up the tiny fraction of sites which provide an > The question is how tiny that fraction is. And how many are useful > sites we are norm

Re: WML support.

2007-10-05 Thread Jess Hampshire
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David J. Ruck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You mean open up the tiny fraction of sites which provide an The question is how tiny that fraction is. And how many are useful sites we are normally locked out of either by lack of plug-ins, javascript or pro

Re: WML support.

2007-10-05 Thread Jess Hampshire
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 11:46 +0100, Jess Hampshire wrote: >> Would making Netsurf able to function as a WAP / WML browser be a >> major task? >> >> Many heavy duty websites provide WML alternatives for use with m

Re: WML support.

2007-10-05 Thread Rob Kendrick
On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 11:46 +0100, Jess Hampshire wrote: > Would making Netsurf able to function as a WAP / WML browser be a > major task? > > Many heavy duty websites provide WML alternatives for use with mobile > phones (without javascript). Are there still that many WAP sites out there? Mo

Re: WML support.

2007-10-05 Thread David J. Ruck
On 5 Oct 2007 Jess Hampshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would making Netsurf able to function as a WAP / WML browser be a > major task? > Many heavy duty websites provide WML alternatives for use with mobile > phones (without javascript). > Since many RISC OS machines are more similar processin