On 8/7/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ideally, we'd get rid of any specific "do you support PPR" and replace it with things that are less Trinidad-specific, like "Do you support XMLHttp"? I'd be very happy to see those sorts of things made public.
Wouldn't this mean that the developer would have some knowledge of how PPR is implemented? It seems from the developer's perspective it doesn't matter HOW the page is partially updated, as long as it is. Assuming we get PPR working on Windows Mobile 5.0, then PPR will be implemented using iframes on most devices and XMLHttp on Windows Mobile 5.0. Wouldn't it be better for the app developer to be able to query if PPR is supported instead of having to check if iframes or XMLHttp are supported and assuming that the ability of the browser to support these means that ADF supports PPR on them? Take care, Joey
-- Adam On 8/7/06, Joseph Rozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Currently whether or not a particular agent supports Partial Page > Rendering (PPR) is specified by the "-adfinternal-partialRendering" > capability in the Agent. > > Because it is prefaced with "-adfinternal-" it is not public and > developers should not rely on it. > > Should we expose whether or not an agent supports PPR instead of > making it internal? > > In the past, a developer did not have much need to check whether or > not PPR was supported. It was generally assumed that a desktop can > support PPR and a PDA can't. > > We're going to look into supporting PPR using XMLHTTP on IE Mobile > 5.0. If that works, then some PDA's will support PPR, and others will > not. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > > Joey >
