This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Other specs in this tool Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-1690 LC-1691 LC-1692 LC-1693 LC-1694 LC-1695 LC-1696 LC-1697 LC-1698 LC-1699 LC-1700 LC-1701 LC-1702 LC-1703 LC-1704 LC-1705 LC-1706 LC-1707 LC-1708 LC-1709 LC-1710 LC-1711 LC-1712 LC-1713 LC-1714 LC-1715 LC-1716 LC-1717 LC-1718 LC-1719 LC-1720 LC-1721 LC-1722 LC-1723 LC-1724 LC-1725 LC-1726 LC-1727 LC-1728 LC-1729 LC-1730 LC-1731 LC-1732 LC-1733 LC-1734 LC-1735 LC-1736 LC-1737 LC-1738 LC-1739 LC-1740 LC-1741 LC-1742 LC-1743 LC-1744 LC-1745 LC-1746 LC-1747 LC-1748 LC-1749 LC-1750 LC-1751 LC-1752 LC-1753 LC-1754 LC-1755 LC-1756 LC-1757 LC-1758 LC-1759 LC-1760 LC-1761 LC-1762 LC-1763 LC-1764 LC-1765 LC-1766 LC-1767 LC-1781 LC-1782 LC-1783 LC-1786
Previous: LC-1725 Next: LC-1720
> If "HTML Basic" existed I think there would be a good argument to > specify it instead. Since text/html work has started again at W3C in the form of the HTMLWG, perhaps an "HTML Basic" spec would now be feasible? Then again, the 1998 attempt at this [7] didn't take off, so reduced HTML was not the solution even with devices *that* limited. And since current mobiles handle full HTML websites, degrading content at the origin server seems ever more unnecessary (the network can do this on-the-fly if it needs to be done). Sincere thanks for taking the feedback from the new HTMLWG seriously. I too hope HTMLWG will add more practical value to the W3C's Mobile Web Initiative (MWI) [8].