James Ellis
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:44:03 -0700
It's just a name branding exercise... having an "iphone" in your domain, e.g as a subdomain has more to do with marketing efforts and user identification (I've got an iphone and I want to use it on something) than it does with the code it actually presents. Look under the hood at iphone.news.com.au and you'll see it presents HTML, JS and CSS that works in any browser. I browse it on my desktop because it presents information quicker than the main news site. News could quite easily have shown it under the mobile.news.com.au subdomain but do you think that their marketing bods would have gotten the exposure/revenue they wanted ? As long as the code served is device agnostic, you can serve it out from one or more domains of any choosing... Cheers J On Monday 21 July 2008 19:14:14 Keryx Web wrote: > Ted Drake skrev: > > Slightly off topic... > > There is a really good Wordpress template/plugin that detects the very > > specific user-agent for iphone and touch and changes your theme to an > > iphone specific layout. > > There is a plethora of such solutions covering most major > PHP-frameworks, RoR, etc. That is the really scaring part! However, I > suspected that most people on this list would stay away from that > solution. I thought that on this list that would be well understood by now. > > Then I saw that even so called standrads aware developers started to use > "iphone" as part of the URL instead, which IMO is perheps less evil. But > only by a few degrees. > > > Sure, it's arguable if you should design for a particular appliance. > > However, they've done the work for you and it works great, although a bit > > generic in look and feel. You can always make adjustments to the theme > > for personalization. > > No it is not "arguable". Within the web standards aware community this > argument has been settled! > > Come on people. Can't you see that this is *EXACTLY* the arguments ´that > were used in 1998 when people forked their code for MSIE and Netscape? > It "worked". It really did. In the short term. > > Developing with the iPhone in mind (not "for" the iPhone) really should > mean nothing else than what it means to develop with e.g. Firefox 3.0 or > Opera 9.5 in mind. You can take advantage of the advanced features, if > you use them as progressive enhancement and capability test for them. > > The only hard question is how you deal with what's *lacking* in the > iPhone: A cursor and a pointer! > > Ohh, it's from Apple, it's shiny, it has no buttons - what is 10 years > of hard fought struggle for web standards worth in that perspective? > Zilch. It seems. > > > Lars Gunther > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************