On 15/11/2010 6:15 PM, Michael MD wrote:
Although the most interesting aspect of BBC mobile content esp. for complex
script languages is the choice between a textual version and an image
version:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/mobile/india/2010/11/101114_raja_resign_final_skj.shtml
Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to handle mobile versions of
content? Specifically arguments for and against how the BBC handles different
formats - including mobile, simply by appending a format type to the end of a
canonical url.
Ie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007rsj5 is
First time I have come across the first convention you outline Sam, but it
is an interesting proposition.
I have a feeling that it is a better way (in the long term) to treat
content, rather than having a mobile specific site.
However, sticking an MP extension onto a page name is arguably
Although the most interesting aspect of BBC mobile content esp. for
complex script languages is the choice between a textual version and an
image version:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/mobile/india/2010/11/101114_raja_resign_final_skj.shtml
UNOFFICIAL
The UK’s new legislation site has a similar convention although differently
named. The base is XML and it is rendered as required. Taking for example
Section 1 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/section/1
Although the most interesting aspect of BBC mobile content esp. for complex
script languages is the choice between a textual version and an image version:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/mobile/india/2010/11/101114_raja_resign_final_skj.shtml
