Webstandards

[Tycho Morgan]

<a href="http://www.webstandards.org">http://www.webstandards.org</a><br /><br />I hate Pocket Internet Explorer.<br /><br />Let’s revise that: I hate browsers that don’t conform to the web standards developed by the W3C, this includes Pocket Internet Explorer. In my spare time (ha!) I do a little bit of web design. As a general rule, the sites I design focus on text and use CSS and XHTML for rendering, and PHP or SSI for dynamic generation. I use this design philosophy because it allows me to separate content from design, focus from the fluff, and in the end I think it makes things easier to manage and maintain. There are enough things and commitments in my life (reality, this site, other projects, artistic pursuits, etc.) that I don’t want to waste my time dealing with what amounts to incompetence on the part of the software designers.<br /><br />Web standards are good for everyone: designers/owners, users, and companies that are trying to develop devices for mobile information portals. Designers/owners/webmasters want web standards because it means less design work, better designs, and more time for important tasks such as content. Users unknowingly like standards because it means pages are quicker to load, designs work as they are intended, and because web standards allow a greater focus on what is really important. Companies seeking to establish mobile technology platforms should support web standards, because it makes it easier for web developers to create websites with useful dynamic content. Without web standards no one is helped, and the amount of valuable work that can be accomplished is greatly reduced. <br /><br />Pocket Internet Explorer in Pocket PC 2002 is based on Regular Internet Explorer for Windows 4.0 (which of course renders differently than the Mac version, but that’s another rant for another website). The version 4 browsers were the absolute worst around. A good chunk of them didn’t support such important standards as CSS, those that didn’t them in the same way. This sent web designers looking for the right combination of codes to get their sites working well in all browsers, and ultimately to the creation of the web standards project. Version 5 browsers were a bit better (if they were even released), almost all of them accepted standards, but there were still discrepancies. With the release of version 6, most browsers are standards compliant; however, there are still differences that are mildly annoying. <br /><br />In any case, Pocket Internet Explorer doesn’t have any support for CSS, seeing as that the rendering engine was dated upon creation. This is generally a <i><b>bad thing</b></i>, making development of quality mobile websites a HUGE pain in the rump. <br /><br />What are your thoughts?

[mwab]

As a general rule, the sites I design focus on text and use CSS and XHTML for rendering, and PHP or SSI for dynamic generation. I use this design philosophy because it allows me to separate content from design, focus from the fluff, and in the end I think it makes things easier to manage and maintain.

I agree completely. This separation is vital to information portals because it allows the design and layout to be changed based on the device you are using while keeping the content the same.

[Jason Dunn]

I concur fully that Pocket Internet Explorer needs MASSIVE improvement, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree: Pocket Internet Explorer with Pocket PC 2002 is based on Internet Explorer 3.0 and supports HTML 3.2. It never claimed to support CSS, so it's hard to accuse it of not being compliant. It's badly outdated, yes, but it's HTML 3.2 compliant - which is what it was created to be. 8)

[Tycho Morgan]

I concur fully that Pocket Internet Explorer needs MASSIVE improvement, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree: Pocket Internet Explorer with Pocket PC 2002 is based on Internet Explorer 3.0 and supports HTML 3.2. It never claimed to support CSS, so it's hard to accuse it of not being compliant. It's badly outdated, yes, but it's HTML 3.2 compliant - which is what it was created to be. 8)

I conceed the point, and the truth is that I really don't care what version it is, what it was ment to be, or any of that. It seems easy enough for microsoft to have used something that would have supported CSS (like what HPCs have), its not like it wasn't around. They chose for whatever reason to do what they did to their own likely detrement. I haven't seen a viable reason as to why PIE can't or doesn't support CSS yet...

Cheers,
Sam

[johncruise]

At last somebody voiced out! Hmmm....now if we can get the PPC dev team's attention to fix this problem with another PPC Update/Patch...

[rubberdemon]

While they're at it, they could work on the rendering speed. For a 206MHz machine, my iPAQ takes weeks to display a web page, even over my Wireless LAN.. Gripe, gripe... We need an Opera or something like it for the pocket pc. Any news on Bitstream's Thunderhawk, BTW??

[ChrisD]

Just to be clear - the Pocket PC 2002 web browser is not even up to Internet Explorer 4.0 standards.

It only supports HTML 3.2 and JScript 1.2

So it's way behind the desktops in terms of capabilities. It always has been and I don't expect that to change anytime soon since the code requirements to get the latest and greatest version of IE on the devices would be larger than the existing roms.

[disconnected]

Well, okay, I guess latest and greatest is too much to expect right now, but why did they have to go BACKWARDS from PPC2K?

The new version is much slower, and can't even access all the same sites that the old version did. I have Sprint CDMA with Bluekite, same as before, but I hardly ever use it on my iPAQ 3830, although I used to use it quite a bit on my 3630. The Sprint aircard 510 has always been slow, for some reason, so I use a Supplynet cable with a Motorola phone, and this was pretty fast with the 3630, but not with the 3830.

[johncruise]

... in addition, how come Mazingo were able to support css and javascript?

[Tycho Morgan]

... in addition, how come Mazingo were able to support css and javascript?

they don't, at least that's what they told me :)

Cheers,