<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_0611249</id>
	<title>The Sad State of the Mobile Web</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255695120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Despite being the much better development platform for today's smartphones, <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/sad-state-mobile-web-gets-even-sadder-022">open Web standards still face an uphill battle on mobile devices</a>, Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister writes, noting that here, as on the desktop, the main hurdle is scalability. But whereas successful Web development for the desktop is a matter of scaling up, mobile Web development calls for applications that can effectively scale down as well &mdash; an imperative that is fast making the state of the mobile Web 'even sadder,' McAllister writes. 'The more that modern Web applications take advantage of the <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/google-chrome-developers-perspective-071">new client-side technologies available in desktop browsers</a>, the more the divide between the desktop Web and the mobile Web widens.' As a result, developers are forced to fall back on basic Web technologies &mdash; a tactic that too often translates simply into writing separate UIs for mobile users. 'The result? Mobile Web applications are in pretty much the same boat as they were when the first WAP-enabled handsets appeared: two separate development tracks, one for the desktop and one for mobile.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Despite being the much better development platform for today 's smartphones , open Web standards still face an uphill battle on mobile devices , Fatal Exception 's Neil McAllister writes , noting that here , as on the desktop , the main hurdle is scalability .
But whereas successful Web development for the desktop is a matter of scaling up , mobile Web development calls for applications that can effectively scale down as well    an imperative that is fast making the state of the mobile Web 'even sadder, ' McAllister writes .
'The more that modern Web applications take advantage of the new client-side technologies available in desktop browsers , the more the divide between the desktop Web and the mobile Web widens .
' As a result , developers are forced to fall back on basic Web technologies    a tactic that too often translates simply into writing separate UIs for mobile users .
'The result ?
Mobile Web applications are in pretty much the same boat as they were when the first WAP-enabled handsets appeared : two separate development tracks , one for the desktop and one for mobile .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Despite being the much better development platform for today's smartphones, open Web standards still face an uphill battle on mobile devices, Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister writes, noting that here, as on the desktop, the main hurdle is scalability.
But whereas successful Web development for the desktop is a matter of scaling up, mobile Web development calls for applications that can effectively scale down as well — an imperative that is fast making the state of the mobile Web 'even sadder,' McAllister writes.
'The more that modern Web applications take advantage of the new client-side technologies available in desktop browsers, the more the divide between the desktop Web and the mobile Web widens.
' As a result, developers are forced to fall back on basic Web technologies — a tactic that too often translates simply into writing separate UIs for mobile users.
'The result?
Mobile Web applications are in pretty much the same boat as they were when the first WAP-enabled handsets appeared: two separate development tracks, one for the desktop and one for mobile.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768397</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>Phil06</author>
	<datestamp>1255706820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My iPhone took 20 seconds to load this page over a five bar cell connection. This is excruciatingly slow, almost unusable. The web apps that just serve up web content (wikipedia, news etc) seem slower than their web counterparts when all they are doing is getting content. How can this be that nobody is getting the square zero concept that speed is an essential usability element.

(another 30 seconds to load the comment preview)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My iPhone took 20 seconds to load this page over a five bar cell connection .
This is excruciatingly slow , almost unusable .
The web apps that just serve up web content ( wikipedia , news etc ) seem slower than their web counterparts when all they are doing is getting content .
How can this be that nobody is getting the square zero concept that speed is an essential usability element .
( another 30 seconds to load the comment preview )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My iPhone took 20 seconds to load this page over a five bar cell connection.
This is excruciatingly slow, almost unusable.
The web apps that just serve up web content (wikipedia, news etc) seem slower than their web counterparts when all they are doing is getting content.
How can this be that nobody is getting the square zero concept that speed is an essential usability element.
(another 30 seconds to load the comment preview)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769581</id>
	<title>open ebook and open reader</title>
	<author>steak</author>
	<datestamp>1255712640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the <a href="http://thewikireader.com/" title="thewikireader.com" rel="nofollow">wikireader</a> [thewikireader.com] can be hacked to support this, I'm sold.  I believe that if the prices of readers can be cut down to less than one hundred dollars they will become much more popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the wikireader [ thewikireader.com ] can be hacked to support this , I 'm sold .
I believe that if the prices of readers can be cut down to less than one hundred dollars they will become much more popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the wikireader [thewikireader.com] can be hacked to support this, I'm sold.
I believe that if the prices of readers can be cut down to less than one hundred dollars they will become much more popular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768187</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>suggsjc</author>
	<datestamp>1255705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it all depends on features and scope, but the "mobile web" is only as complicated as you want to make it.  If you have good markup, then things translate very well to mobile phones.
<br> <br>
In general, there are two types of mobile browsers.  Ones that try to emulate the "real web" (ie. iPhone/Safari, Opera Mini, etc) and ones that just strip out all of the css and just display the text (ie. Blackberry browser).
<br> <br>
I've found that if you take a look at your site without css enabled (in Firefox, View -&gt; Page Style -&gt; No Style), if the site looks good and is functional, then you'll be "ok" on mobile phones.  If your site looks horrible, then you should probably not consider yourself a web developer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it all depends on features and scope , but the " mobile web " is only as complicated as you want to make it .
If you have good markup , then things translate very well to mobile phones .
In general , there are two types of mobile browsers .
Ones that try to emulate the " real web " ( ie .
iPhone/Safari , Opera Mini , etc ) and ones that just strip out all of the css and just display the text ( ie .
Blackberry browser ) .
I 've found that if you take a look at your site without css enabled ( in Firefox , View - &gt; Page Style - &gt; No Style ) , if the site looks good and is functional , then you 'll be " ok " on mobile phones .
If your site looks horrible , then you should probably not consider yourself a web developer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it all depends on features and scope, but the "mobile web" is only as complicated as you want to make it.
If you have good markup, then things translate very well to mobile phones.
In general, there are two types of mobile browsers.
Ones that try to emulate the "real web" (ie.
iPhone/Safari, Opera Mini, etc) and ones that just strip out all of the css and just display the text (ie.
Blackberry browser).
I've found that if you take a look at your site without css enabled (in Firefox, View -&gt; Page Style -&gt; No Style), if the site looks good and is functional, then you'll be "ok" on mobile phones.
If your site looks horrible, then you should probably not consider yourself a web developer...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767423</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1255699860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it specially ironic that <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/google-chrome-developers-perspective-071" title="infoworld.com">one of the links provided in the summary</a> [infoworld.com] says<p><div class="quote"><p> It's also the engine found in both <b>Apple's iPhone</b> and <b>Google Android</b>, arguably the two most important mobile Web platforms today.<br> <br>

That means Google Chrome isn't yet another browser to support,</p> </div><p>Which in fact contradicts the whole assertion of the article</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it specially ironic that one of the links provided in the summary [ infoworld.com ] says It 's also the engine found in both Apple 's iPhone and Google Android , arguably the two most important mobile Web platforms today .
That means Google Chrome is n't yet another browser to support , Which in fact contradicts the whole assertion of the article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it specially ironic that one of the links provided in the summary [infoworld.com] says It's also the engine found in both Apple's iPhone and Google Android, arguably the two most important mobile Web platforms today.
That means Google Chrome isn't yet another browser to support, Which in fact contradicts the whole assertion of the article
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29774901</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1255702560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I really do think this is all about the utter lack of standards when it comes to mobiles. IMHO, user agent is one of the most reliable things to help a web programmer distinguish between full-fledged browsers (clients fully or mostly W3C compliant, and in theory, able to handle javascript/flash/etc) and lower power clients (mobiles, embedded platforms, etc, that can't deal with cpu intensive stuff). Ideally, there should be a W3 browser standard, where the UA has an optional series of "flags" or codes appended to the end, that could tell whether it's text only, js capable (or generally client-script capable), embedded, etc...
<br> <br>
Obviously, I can see some security risk in including this in the UA, but I'd hope programmers would be able to make secure browsing clients that don't just send the UA or other details to unsolicited client info requests, and the same for the OS overall. And, of course, there's the older-than-the-internets issue of edumacating users not to fall for the typical phishing shit, not to visit risky sites with platforms lacking security, etc, etc...But that's a debate for another time.
<br> <br>Feel free to shred this idea to pieces, in true<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. fashion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I really do think this is all about the utter lack of standards when it comes to mobiles .
IMHO , user agent is one of the most reliable things to help a web programmer distinguish between full-fledged browsers ( clients fully or mostly W3C compliant , and in theory , able to handle javascript/flash/etc ) and lower power clients ( mobiles , embedded platforms , etc , that ca n't deal with cpu intensive stuff ) .
Ideally , there should be a W3 browser standard , where the UA has an optional series of " flags " or codes appended to the end , that could tell whether it 's text only , js capable ( or generally client-script capable ) , embedded , etc.. . Obviously , I can see some security risk in including this in the UA , but I 'd hope programmers would be able to make secure browsing clients that do n't just send the UA or other details to unsolicited client info requests , and the same for the OS overall .
And , of course , there 's the older-than-the-internets issue of edumacating users not to fall for the typical phishing shit , not to visit risky sites with platforms lacking security , etc , etc...But that 's a debate for another time .
Feel free to shred this idea to pieces , in true / .
fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I really do think this is all about the utter lack of standards when it comes to mobiles.
IMHO, user agent is one of the most reliable things to help a web programmer distinguish between full-fledged browsers (clients fully or mostly W3C compliant, and in theory, able to handle javascript/flash/etc) and lower power clients (mobiles, embedded platforms, etc, that can't deal with cpu intensive stuff).
Ideally, there should be a W3 browser standard, where the UA has an optional series of "flags" or codes appended to the end, that could tell whether it's text only, js capable (or generally client-script capable), embedded, etc...
 
Obviously, I can see some security risk in including this in the UA, but I'd hope programmers would be able to make secure browsing clients that don't just send the UA or other details to unsolicited client info requests, and the same for the OS overall.
And, of course, there's the older-than-the-internets issue of edumacating users not to fall for the typical phishing shit, not to visit risky sites with platforms lacking security, etc, etc...But that's a debate for another time.
Feel free to shred this idea to pieces, in true /.
fashion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769293</id>
	<title>Eternal September</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1255711320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Last time I asked, CmdrTaco's response was that slashdot is not concerned about development for mobile devices.</p></div><p>Lets just hope it stays that way to spare us Eternal September.</p><p>Seriously if you thought AOL users were bad, they are nothing compared to iPhone users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I asked , CmdrTaco 's response was that slashdot is not concerned about development for mobile devices.Lets just hope it stays that way to spare us Eternal September.Seriously if you thought AOL users were bad , they are nothing compared to iPhone users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I asked, CmdrTaco's response was that slashdot is not concerned about development for mobile devices.Lets just hope it stays that way to spare us Eternal September.Seriously if you thought AOL users were bad, they are nothing compared to iPhone users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770297</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1255716120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curiously enough, it does read well using Opera Mini. Haven't ever tried to post that way, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curiously enough , it does read well using Opera Mini .
Have n't ever tried to post that way , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curiously enough, it does read well using Opera Mini.
Haven't ever tried to post that way, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769693</id>
	<title>the "mobile" web</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yawn. it aint going anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yawn .
it aint going anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yawn.
it aint going anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381</id>
	<title>it's all about screen size</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1255699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pixels and readability.
<p>
No matter how you package it, a text-based website cannot be read conveniently on a postage-stamp sized screen. You spend all your time scrolling the text sideways, and up and down. All this gets in the way of your main aim, which is to get the information on that site. This presumes (falsely) that a usable proportion of the mobile device's screen is not taken up with banner ads, or visual embellishments which simply get in the way. Mobile web is fine for sites that just have a couple of lines of information and maybe a single icon and a link, but for anything more complex you need a screen at least 1024*768 and at a physical size where the letters can actually be read at that resolution.
</p><p>
Since the web is still (and probably will alway be) text based - as this is the best way to achieve a reasonable density of information, mobile users just have to accept that a "massive" 3 inch display just won't hack it. For example, cut a small rectangle out of a piece of paper that covers your whole screen. Now try and do any meaningful work through that hole and you'll have ripped it away within minutes. That's the problem with mobile devices, they're just not big enough to get all the information you need to be displayed at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... pixels and readability .
No matter how you package it , a text-based website can not be read conveniently on a postage-stamp sized screen .
You spend all your time scrolling the text sideways , and up and down .
All this gets in the way of your main aim , which is to get the information on that site .
This presumes ( falsely ) that a usable proportion of the mobile device 's screen is not taken up with banner ads , or visual embellishments which simply get in the way .
Mobile web is fine for sites that just have a couple of lines of information and maybe a single icon and a link , but for anything more complex you need a screen at least 1024 * 768 and at a physical size where the letters can actually be read at that resolution .
Since the web is still ( and probably will alway be ) text based - as this is the best way to achieve a reasonable density of information , mobile users just have to accept that a " massive " 3 inch display just wo n't hack it .
For example , cut a small rectangle out of a piece of paper that covers your whole screen .
Now try and do any meaningful work through that hole and you 'll have ripped it away within minutes .
That 's the problem with mobile devices , they 're just not big enough to get all the information you need to be displayed at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... pixels and readability.
No matter how you package it, a text-based website cannot be read conveniently on a postage-stamp sized screen.
You spend all your time scrolling the text sideways, and up and down.
All this gets in the way of your main aim, which is to get the information on that site.
This presumes (falsely) that a usable proportion of the mobile device's screen is not taken up with banner ads, or visual embellishments which simply get in the way.
Mobile web is fine for sites that just have a couple of lines of information and maybe a single icon and a link, but for anything more complex you need a screen at least 1024*768 and at a physical size where the letters can actually be read at that resolution.
Since the web is still (and probably will alway be) text based - as this is the best way to achieve a reasonable density of information, mobile users just have to accept that a "massive" 3 inch display just won't hack it.
For example, cut a small rectangle out of a piece of paper that covers your whole screen.
Now try and do any meaningful work through that hole and you'll have ripped it away within minutes.
That's the problem with mobile devices, they're just not big enough to get all the information you need to be displayed at once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768865</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot, meet the Internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255708980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to recall slashdot having a text based design just up to a few years ago. It wasn't in pace with the web for a long time.<br>Frankly I liked it better that way. It had an unfriendly feeling towards ordinary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/I don't want to fix your pc/ people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall slashdot having a text based design just up to a few years ago .
It was n't in pace with the web for a long time.Frankly I liked it better that way .
It had an unfriendly feeling towards ordinary /I do n't want to fix your pc/ people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall slashdot having a text based design just up to a few years ago.
It wasn't in pace with the web for a long time.Frankly I liked it better that way.
It had an unfriendly feeling towards ordinary /I don't want to fix your pc/ people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768557</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Alidar</author>
	<datestamp>1255707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I love you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I love you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I love you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775679</id>
	<title>Let's keep it simple, eh?</title>
	<author>bryonschultz</author>
	<datestamp>1255714680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, don't most, if not all of us go to the web for information, not pretty and fancy pages?  Interactivity is one thing, but let's keep it simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , do n't most , if not all of us go to the web for information , not pretty and fancy pages ?
Interactivity is one thing , but let 's keep it simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, don't most, if not all of us go to the web for information, not pretty and fancy pages?
Interactivity is one thing, but let's keep it simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769923</id>
	<title>Re:is this why /. is the sucks to read on my iphon</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1255714320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>except for the flash based ones, slashdot is the most annoying to navigate on my iphone</p></div><p>Just create a separate account, then log into that account and do:</p><ul><li>Click on Help &amp; Account (upper right)</li><li>At the right, below 'Classic Index', click General</li><li>Check 'Use classic index'</li><li>Check 'Simple design'</li></ul><p>Then go to your iphone and log in with the new account. Simple as that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>except for the flash based ones , slashdot is the most annoying to navigate on my iphoneJust create a separate account , then log into that account and do : Click on Help &amp; Account ( upper right ) At the right , below 'Classic Index ' , click GeneralCheck 'Use classic index'Check 'Simple design'Then go to your iphone and log in with the new account .
Simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except for the flash based ones, slashdot is the most annoying to navigate on my iphoneJust create a separate account, then log into that account and do:Click on Help &amp; Account (upper right)At the right, below 'Classic Index', click GeneralCheck 'Use classic index'Check 'Simple design'Then go to your iphone and log in with the new account.
Simple as that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775111</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1255705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may not know what I'm talking about here, so if I am wrong, please correct me.  Your really nice high end Mobile Phones may have fully features browsers, but there seems to be a bunch of mid range phones that are like "Smart Phone Lite".  They have limited mobile web capability, no SMTP/POP/Exchange EMAIL support, and are a heck of a lot cheaper.  I would think that a good deal of users just want to occasionally browse an internet page to checks some news headlines, sports scores, stock quotes, or something else without paying top dollar for a smart phone.  Until almost all data enabled phones have full featured browsers, we will have mobile site hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may not know what I 'm talking about here , so if I am wrong , please correct me .
Your really nice high end Mobile Phones may have fully features browsers , but there seems to be a bunch of mid range phones that are like " Smart Phone Lite " .
They have limited mobile web capability , no SMTP/POP/Exchange EMAIL support , and are a heck of a lot cheaper .
I would think that a good deal of users just want to occasionally browse an internet page to checks some news headlines , sports scores , stock quotes , or something else without paying top dollar for a smart phone .
Until almost all data enabled phones have full featured browsers , we will have mobile site hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may not know what I'm talking about here, so if I am wrong, please correct me.
Your really nice high end Mobile Phones may have fully features browsers, but there seems to be a bunch of mid range phones that are like "Smart Phone Lite".
They have limited mobile web capability, no SMTP/POP/Exchange EMAIL support, and are a heck of a lot cheaper.
I would think that a good deal of users just want to occasionally browse an internet page to checks some news headlines, sports scores, stock quotes, or something else without paying top dollar for a smart phone.
Until almost all data enabled phones have full featured browsers, we will have mobile site hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767587</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>too true, makes one wonder, it even sucks on the desktop, and they claim to be tech savvy, what a joke. Wise in their own eyes, typical posers.  Also, they probably dont care about mobile because they are chained to their desks wondering why they are not rich off this website, or too cheap to care what others think, emperor has no clothes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>too true , makes one wonder , it even sucks on the desktop , and they claim to be tech savvy , what a joke .
Wise in their own eyes , typical posers .
Also , they probably dont care about mobile because they are chained to their desks wondering why they are not rich off this website , or too cheap to care what others think , emperor has no clothes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>too true, makes one wonder, it even sucks on the desktop, and they claim to be tech savvy, what a joke.
Wise in their own eyes, typical posers.
Also, they probably dont care about mobile because they are chained to their desks wondering why they are not rich off this website, or too cheap to care what others think, emperor has no clothes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29772805</id>
	<title>Skyfire</title>
	<author>planckscale</author>
	<datestamp>1255686420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I love the Skyfire browser on my Windows Media 6.1 HTC Kaiser (Tilt). Skyfire looks to me like they stream the browser which is actually running on a server somewhere and then forwards input from my device into the browser. It has great zooming capabilities, can play flash movies etc from most sites and is very fast. In this way, the browser is always at the latest version and is a full-fledged fat-client browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I love the Skyfire browser on my Windows Media 6.1 HTC Kaiser ( Tilt ) .
Skyfire looks to me like they stream the browser which is actually running on a server somewhere and then forwards input from my device into the browser .
It has great zooming capabilities , can play flash movies etc from most sites and is very fast .
In this way , the browser is always at the latest version and is a full-fledged fat-client browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I love the Skyfire browser on my Windows Media 6.1 HTC Kaiser (Tilt).
Skyfire looks to me like they stream the browser which is actually running on a server somewhere and then forwards input from my device into the browser.
It has great zooming capabilities, can play flash movies etc from most sites and is very fast.
In this way, the browser is always at the latest version and is a full-fledged fat-client browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769703</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1255713240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Use CSS as it was meant to be used, and stop using javascript and flash where they are unnecessary, and your sites will work just fine on mobile devices. Oh, that's hard? Sorry, your crap tools which produce shit code you don't understand don't impress me.</p></div><p>Can't agree with this more. CSS is fine if you want to make things look better on browsers that support it. Still there are many, many browsers that don't support it running on mobile devices. Hell blind people use a screen reader that definitely does not support CSS - a good test for screen reader support is seeing if your website is usable on a text browser like Lynx. You can't depend on CSS for layout unless you exclude all these.</p><p>Not everyone in the world uses Firefox, just like not everyone uses IE. Even if IE6 disappeared you still can't assume that everyone has a browser with CSS support. So if you use it to make things look better on compatible browsers that's fair enough. If you make a website that is unusable without it, you're excluding more than just IE6 users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use CSS as it was meant to be used , and stop using javascript and flash where they are unnecessary , and your sites will work just fine on mobile devices .
Oh , that 's hard ?
Sorry , your crap tools which produce shit code you do n't understand do n't impress me.Ca n't agree with this more .
CSS is fine if you want to make things look better on browsers that support it .
Still there are many , many browsers that do n't support it running on mobile devices .
Hell blind people use a screen reader that definitely does not support CSS - a good test for screen reader support is seeing if your website is usable on a text browser like Lynx .
You ca n't depend on CSS for layout unless you exclude all these.Not everyone in the world uses Firefox , just like not everyone uses IE .
Even if IE6 disappeared you still ca n't assume that everyone has a browser with CSS support .
So if you use it to make things look better on compatible browsers that 's fair enough .
If you make a website that is unusable without it , you 're excluding more than just IE6 users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use CSS as it was meant to be used, and stop using javascript and flash where they are unnecessary, and your sites will work just fine on mobile devices.
Oh, that's hard?
Sorry, your crap tools which produce shit code you don't understand don't impress me.Can't agree with this more.
CSS is fine if you want to make things look better on browsers that support it.
Still there are many, many browsers that don't support it running on mobile devices.
Hell blind people use a screen reader that definitely does not support CSS - a good test for screen reader support is seeing if your website is usable on a text browser like Lynx.
You can't depend on CSS for layout unless you exclude all these.Not everyone in the world uses Firefox, just like not everyone uses IE.
Even if IE6 disappeared you still can't assume that everyone has a browser with CSS support.
So if you use it to make things look better on compatible browsers that's fair enough.
If you make a website that is unusable without it, you're excluding more than just IE6 users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768835</id>
	<title>Re:Wish the iPhone didn't support Javascript so we</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1255708860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just great, if all you want from the web is static text. That isn't however, what the vast majority of people and companies want.</p><p>AJAX exists because when Microsoft put it into hotmail it was so vastly successful that it actually got implemented as a standard.</p><p>The web is about the delivery of information. That is it's function. Believe it or not, for most people, the form in which information is delivered is very important. You cannot separate form from function on the web. It just doesn't work. If you could there wouldn't even have been any HTML, just straight text coming down a pipe.</p><p>I personally don't really like some things opening in my web browser either, but I've had clients who insisted that it be done that way. I hate convergence devices too, but everyone still has an iPhone, because that's what they actually want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just great , if all you want from the web is static text .
That is n't however , what the vast majority of people and companies want.AJAX exists because when Microsoft put it into hotmail it was so vastly successful that it actually got implemented as a standard.The web is about the delivery of information .
That is it 's function .
Believe it or not , for most people , the form in which information is delivered is very important .
You can not separate form from function on the web .
It just does n't work .
If you could there would n't even have been any HTML , just straight text coming down a pipe.I personally do n't really like some things opening in my web browser either , but I 've had clients who insisted that it be done that way .
I hate convergence devices too , but everyone still has an iPhone , because that 's what they actually want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just great, if all you want from the web is static text.
That isn't however, what the vast majority of people and companies want.AJAX exists because when Microsoft put it into hotmail it was so vastly successful that it actually got implemented as a standard.The web is about the delivery of information.
That is it's function.
Believe it or not, for most people, the form in which information is delivered is very important.
You cannot separate form from function on the web.
It just doesn't work.
If you could there wouldn't even have been any HTML, just straight text coming down a pipe.I personally don't really like some things opening in my web browser either, but I've had clients who insisted that it be done that way.
I hate convergence devices too, but everyone still has an iPhone, because that's what they actually want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768695</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well, guess what: my fancy website is cooler than your so-called fancy mobile so-called device</i></p><p>I need your website a lot less than your advertisers need my eyeballs. And gues wat? NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool". Stop trying to impress me, because you're not going to do it with a "cool" web site. You'll only annoy me. You're putting the cart before the horse. You are expendable, your audience is not.</p><p><i>In other words: it would be nice if the real world would be as you want it, your arrogant, hypocrite fuck.</i></p><p>I find that often times incompetent people will curse at those who dare call them on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , guess what : my fancy website is cooler than your so-called fancy mobile so-called deviceI need your website a lot less than your advertisers need my eyeballs .
And gues wat ?
NOBODY visits any web site because it 's " cool " .
Stop trying to impress me , because you 're not going to do it with a " cool " web site .
You 'll only annoy me .
You 're putting the cart before the horse .
You are expendable , your audience is not.In other words : it would be nice if the real world would be as you want it , your arrogant , hypocrite fuck.I find that often times incompetent people will curse at those who dare call them on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, guess what: my fancy website is cooler than your so-called fancy mobile so-called deviceI need your website a lot less than your advertisers need my eyeballs.
And gues wat?
NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool".
Stop trying to impress me, because you're not going to do it with a "cool" web site.
You'll only annoy me.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
You are expendable, your audience is not.In other words: it would be nice if the real world would be as you want it, your arrogant, hypocrite fuck.I find that often times incompetent people will curse at those who dare call them on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768011</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255704660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most sites could be written in plain vanilla HTML with no scripting, flash, etc whatever and could be easily read and navigated by any device.</p><p>The problem is people have forgotten how to code in HTML. The pity is HTML is dirt-simple and people still can't be bothered to learn it, preferring to use a bad tool to do it for them (and face it, all of the web development tools suck).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most sites could be written in plain vanilla HTML with no scripting , flash , etc whatever and could be easily read and navigated by any device.The problem is people have forgotten how to code in HTML .
The pity is HTML is dirt-simple and people still ca n't be bothered to learn it , preferring to use a bad tool to do it for them ( and face it , all of the web development tools suck ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most sites could be written in plain vanilla HTML with no scripting, flash, etc whatever and could be easily read and navigated by any device.The problem is people have forgotten how to code in HTML.
The pity is HTML is dirt-simple and people still can't be bothered to learn it, preferring to use a bad tool to do it for them (and face it, all of the web development tools suck).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767727</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255702620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The N900 hasn't even been released yet, and it's already outdated (not that that's going to stop me from buying one...). It's one of the first smartphones to play in-browser Flash video halfway decently, but what about when Youtube switches to H264 only... what about when the next technology after AJAX/CSS/Javascript comes out?</p><p>Sure, the browsers on new smartphones are great, but they're still a long way away from being able to display pages the same way as a desktop or laptop... mostly because of CPU constraints, as far as I can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The N900 has n't even been released yet , and it 's already outdated ( not that that 's going to stop me from buying one... ) .
It 's one of the first smartphones to play in-browser Flash video halfway decently , but what about when Youtube switches to H264 only... what about when the next technology after AJAX/CSS/Javascript comes out ? Sure , the browsers on new smartphones are great , but they 're still a long way away from being able to display pages the same way as a desktop or laptop... mostly because of CPU constraints , as far as I can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The N900 hasn't even been released yet, and it's already outdated (not that that's going to stop me from buying one...).
It's one of the first smartphones to play in-browser Flash video halfway decently, but what about when Youtube switches to H264 only... what about when the next technology after AJAX/CSS/Javascript comes out?Sure, the browsers on new smartphones are great, but they're still a long way away from being able to display pages the same way as a desktop or laptop... mostly because of CPU constraints, as far as I can tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767367</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255699380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that you can take a device the size of a small paperback and claim it's representative of what mobile phones can do. The hardware performance will probably trickle down to cheaper devices in five years, but phones with 2-inch screens and a mechanical keypad continue to dominate the market for good reasons. Most users don't feel the need to carry a large touchscreen slab for the amount of web browsing they do, and getting a web app to work properly on a small button-driven device without simply feeding them a completely different version is nontrivial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that you can take a device the size of a small paperback and claim it 's representative of what mobile phones can do .
The hardware performance will probably trickle down to cheaper devices in five years , but phones with 2-inch screens and a mechanical keypad continue to dominate the market for good reasons .
Most users do n't feel the need to carry a large touchscreen slab for the amount of web browsing they do , and getting a web app to work properly on a small button-driven device without simply feeding them a completely different version is nontrivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that you can take a device the size of a small paperback and claim it's representative of what mobile phones can do.
The hardware performance will probably trickle down to cheaper devices in five years, but phones with 2-inch screens and a mechanical keypad continue to dominate the market for good reasons.
Most users don't feel the need to carry a large touchscreen slab for the amount of web browsing they do, and getting a web app to work properly on a small button-driven device without simply feeding them a completely different version is nontrivial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767927</id>
	<title>Re:Wish the iPhone didn't support Javascript so we</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1255704000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Paul,<br> <br>Here is one way to apply the breaks.  Create a successful website that millions of people use everyday.  Do this without using plugins.  Your example will inspire other people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paul , Here is one way to apply the breaks .
Create a successful website that millions of people use everyday .
Do this without using plugins .
Your example will inspire other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paul, Here is one way to apply the breaks.
Create a successful website that millions of people use everyday.
Do this without using plugins.
Your example will inspire other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29783239</id>
	<title>Web pages don't have to look like games!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255869480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use babelserver.org on my mobile. If a site doesn't go through there, it isn't worth reading.</p><p>C'mon call the games games, and stop using flash in every other web page!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use babelserver.org on my mobile .
If a site does n't go through there , it is n't worth reading.C'mon call the games games , and stop using flash in every other web page !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use babelserver.org on my mobile.
If a site doesn't go through there, it isn't worth reading.C'mon call the games games, and stop using flash in every other web page!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768105</id>
	<title>Re:is this why /. is the sucks to read on my iphon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255705200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you kidding? Sure, colonslash is somewhat usable on an iPhone, but considering it's basically loading text comments (sure, there are lots of them, but still...), it is an absolute slug. And lets not even bring up the aborted fetus that is the "mobile" version. I think it was originally made in 2000 or 2001 and has never been thought about again. For an idea of how a usable message board/comment system can be done well for mobile devices, look no further than a site like Slick Deals, or really, any of the other numerous sites out there that took a weekend or two to sit down and think about how to accomplish this Herculean task.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
Sure , colonslash is somewhat usable on an iPhone , but considering it 's basically loading text comments ( sure , there are lots of them , but still... ) , it is an absolute slug .
And lets not even bring up the aborted fetus that is the " mobile " version .
I think it was originally made in 2000 or 2001 and has never been thought about again .
For an idea of how a usable message board/comment system can be done well for mobile devices , look no further than a site like Slick Deals , or really , any of the other numerous sites out there that took a weekend or two to sit down and think about how to accomplish this Herculean task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
Sure, colonslash is somewhat usable on an iPhone, but considering it's basically loading text comments (sure, there are lots of them, but still...), it is an absolute slug.
And lets not even bring up the aborted fetus that is the "mobile" version.
I think it was originally made in 2000 or 2001 and has never been thought about again.
For an idea of how a usable message board/comment system can be done well for mobile devices, look no further than a site like Slick Deals, or really, any of the other numerous sites out there that took a weekend or two to sit down and think about how to accomplish this Herculean task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768497</id>
	<title>Why WAP is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a little reminder: every page you visit with in WAP automatically gets your billing details.</p><p>There have been some scams abusing this "feature".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a little reminder : every page you visit with in WAP automatically gets your billing details.There have been some scams abusing this " feature " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a little reminder: every page you visit with in WAP automatically gets your billing details.There have been some scams abusing this "feature".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767815</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>6Yankee</author>
	<datestamp>1255703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't have put it quite as bluntly, but yes.</p><p>I'm working on a custom skin for phpBB, and by using sensible HTML and CSS I've got something that looks good on the desktop and on IE Mobile. I use Javascript to pull in all the pretty stuff like avatars on the desktop version; mobile devices (and IE6, which gets the mobile stylesheet) never need see it, and the site is usable without it.</p><p>My skin is actually usable on a handheld, though it still needs some work. phpBB's own is a complete mess, and there are some things that (like sending PMs) that you just can't do because the layout's so horribly broken.</p><p>The forum members who tested it, on iphones, crackberries and all sorts of devices, reported that these all displayed the mobile version fine. It took some crafty stylesheet switching, which I nicked from somewhere, but it can be done.</p><p>The fly in the ointment is the crackberry - I have to do PHP parsing in the template specifically to catch it, and seems every different retailer's version of every kind of crackberry has different settings for CSS (including "disabled"). As a developer, there's nothing I can do about that - and it's completely boneheaded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't have put it quite as bluntly , but yes.I 'm working on a custom skin for phpBB , and by using sensible HTML and CSS I 've got something that looks good on the desktop and on IE Mobile .
I use Javascript to pull in all the pretty stuff like avatars on the desktop version ; mobile devices ( and IE6 , which gets the mobile stylesheet ) never need see it , and the site is usable without it.My skin is actually usable on a handheld , though it still needs some work .
phpBB 's own is a complete mess , and there are some things that ( like sending PMs ) that you just ca n't do because the layout 's so horribly broken.The forum members who tested it , on iphones , crackberries and all sorts of devices , reported that these all displayed the mobile version fine .
It took some crafty stylesheet switching , which I nicked from somewhere , but it can be done.The fly in the ointment is the crackberry - I have to do PHP parsing in the template specifically to catch it , and seems every different retailer 's version of every kind of crackberry has different settings for CSS ( including " disabled " ) .
As a developer , there 's nothing I can do about that - and it 's completely boneheaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't have put it quite as bluntly, but yes.I'm working on a custom skin for phpBB, and by using sensible HTML and CSS I've got something that looks good on the desktop and on IE Mobile.
I use Javascript to pull in all the pretty stuff like avatars on the desktop version; mobile devices (and IE6, which gets the mobile stylesheet) never need see it, and the site is usable without it.My skin is actually usable on a handheld, though it still needs some work.
phpBB's own is a complete mess, and there are some things that (like sending PMs) that you just can't do because the layout's so horribly broken.The forum members who tested it, on iphones, crackberries and all sorts of devices, reported that these all displayed the mobile version fine.
It took some crafty stylesheet switching, which I nicked from somewhere, but it can be done.The fly in the ointment is the crackberry - I have to do PHP parsing in the template specifically to catch it, and seems every different retailer's version of every kind of crackberry has different settings for CSS (including "disabled").
As a developer, there's nothing I can do about that - and it's completely boneheaded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767455</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1255700160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, I think it was Nokias Ari Jaaksi who said something like this several years ago: "there is only one web. If your device does not work there, you lose". That was pretty much true then, and it's even more true today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , I think it was Nokias Ari Jaaksi who said something like this several years ago : " there is only one web .
If your device does not work there , you lose " .
That was pretty much true then , and it 's even more true today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, I think it was Nokias Ari Jaaksi who said something like this several years ago: "there is only one web.
If your device does not work there, you lose".
That was pretty much true then, and it's even more true today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775799</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>ksemlerK</author>
	<datestamp>1255716600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hack your device, and install a custom radio/ROM/SPL.  XDA Developers, Howard Forums, and PPC Geeks will tell you pretty much anything you could possibly waste to know about your chosen platform.  With a custom ROM, (or registry edits), you can easily identify as a desktop running Firefox if you want.  (or just run SkyFire and surf the web on your phone like you would on your desktop.  It has zoom, flash, and silverlight 2.0 support too, but NetFlix and Hulu arent supported.  (but if you forge your UA, you can run HuLu).
<br> <br>
To bypass the HuLu blockout, change your UID to read:
<br> <br>
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1) Gecko/20090624 Firefox/3.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
<br> <br>
Unless HuLu wants to block appx 33\% of the market running WinXP, that string as your User Agent will get you through, no problem</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hack your device , and install a custom radio/ROM/SPL .
XDA Developers , Howard Forums , and PPC Geeks will tell you pretty much anything you could possibly waste to know about your chosen platform .
With a custom ROM , ( or registry edits ) , you can easily identify as a desktop running Firefox if you want .
( or just run SkyFire and surf the web on your phone like you would on your desktop .
It has zoom , flash , and silverlight 2.0 support too , but NetFlix and Hulu arent supported .
( but if you forge your UA , you can run HuLu ) .
To bypass the HuLu blockout , change your UID to read : Mozilla/5.0 ( Windows ; U ; Windows NT 5.1 ; en-US ; rv : 1.9.1 ) Gecko/20090624 Firefox/3.5 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729 ) Unless HuLu wants to block appx 33 \ % of the market running WinXP , that string as your User Agent will get you through , no problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hack your device, and install a custom radio/ROM/SPL.
XDA Developers, Howard Forums, and PPC Geeks will tell you pretty much anything you could possibly waste to know about your chosen platform.
With a custom ROM, (or registry edits), you can easily identify as a desktop running Firefox if you want.
(or just run SkyFire and surf the web on your phone like you would on your desktop.
It has zoom, flash, and silverlight 2.0 support too, but NetFlix and Hulu arent supported.
(but if you forge your UA, you can run HuLu).
To bypass the HuLu blockout, change your UID to read:
 
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1) Gecko/20090624 Firefox/3.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
 
Unless HuLu wants to block appx 33\% of the market running WinXP, that string as your User Agent will get you through, no problem</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768709</id>
	<title>Re:it's all about screen size</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1255708380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FFS, the BBC website cost 30 million pounds to develop and 100 million pounds a year to run <a href="http://www.webthrift.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bbc-response-to-foi.pdf" title="webthrift.co.uk"> of course it runs properly on your bloody mobile phone. Most web developers don't have anywhere near that kind of budget.</a> [webthrift.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FFS , the BBC website cost 30 million pounds to develop and 100 million pounds a year to run of course it runs properly on your bloody mobile phone .
Most web developers do n't have anywhere near that kind of budget .
[ webthrift.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FFS, the BBC website cost 30 million pounds to develop and 100 million pounds a year to run  of course it runs properly on your bloody mobile phone.
Most web developers don't have anywhere near that kind of budget.
[webthrift.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771245</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>dyefade</author>
	<datestamp>1255720860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And gues wat? NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool".</i></p><p>You're so wrong with this I don't know where to begin. The server logs from the company I work for, with their millions of hits and millions of &pound;/&euro; in revenue strong suggest that you're utterly, irrecoverably wrong.</p><p>GP hit it perfectly the first time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And gues wat ?
NOBODY visits any web site because it 's " cool " .You 're so wrong with this I do n't know where to begin .
The server logs from the company I work for , with their millions of hits and millions of   /    in revenue strong suggest that you 're utterly , irrecoverably wrong.GP hit it perfectly the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And gues wat?
NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool".You're so wrong with this I don't know where to begin.
The server logs from the company I work for, with their millions of hits and millions of £/€ in revenue strong suggest that you're utterly, irrecoverably wrong.GP hit it perfectly the first time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769899</id>
	<title>Re:it's all about screen size</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It truly depends on the site. News articles are incredibly easy to read on the iPhone *if the site presents the story as a contiguous block of text*.  I suspect that's true on most phones which can show more than 4 or 5 lines of text at a time.  Sites like mobile washingtonpost do a great job of this, but even the NYTimes and similar sites without special mobile versions are really easy to use, because they don't break up the text.</p><p>For reading, it's sticking ads and buttons and gratuituous graphics (lines, boxes,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) in the middle of an article which make its display on a mobile device difficult to use.</p><p>Clearly sites with lots of interactivity and lots of actions can be a bit difficult to use -- the MS exchange web interface on an iPhone is usable, but not anyone's first choice, mainly since the action buttons are tiny (need to pinch-and-zoom or have very good aim) and at the top of the screen requiring scrolling back (luckily just a single touch) after reading email -- but it's not that hard to design a layout that works for mobile.</p><p>Honestly, advertisements are the biggest problem, and sites that (for mobile devices) move the ads to the top + bottom of the text (instead of in the middle) are those which I find myself coming back to on the iPhone.  The others are just too annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It truly depends on the site .
News articles are incredibly easy to read on the iPhone * if the site presents the story as a contiguous block of text * .
I suspect that 's true on most phones which can show more than 4 or 5 lines of text at a time .
Sites like mobile washingtonpost do a great job of this , but even the NYTimes and similar sites without special mobile versions are really easy to use , because they do n't break up the text.For reading , it 's sticking ads and buttons and gratuituous graphics ( lines , boxes , ... ) in the middle of an article which make its display on a mobile device difficult to use.Clearly sites with lots of interactivity and lots of actions can be a bit difficult to use -- the MS exchange web interface on an iPhone is usable , but not anyone 's first choice , mainly since the action buttons are tiny ( need to pinch-and-zoom or have very good aim ) and at the top of the screen requiring scrolling back ( luckily just a single touch ) after reading email -- but it 's not that hard to design a layout that works for mobile.Honestly , advertisements are the biggest problem , and sites that ( for mobile devices ) move the ads to the top + bottom of the text ( instead of in the middle ) are those which I find myself coming back to on the iPhone .
The others are just too annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It truly depends on the site.
News articles are incredibly easy to read on the iPhone *if the site presents the story as a contiguous block of text*.
I suspect that's true on most phones which can show more than 4 or 5 lines of text at a time.
Sites like mobile washingtonpost do a great job of this, but even the NYTimes and similar sites without special mobile versions are really easy to use, because they don't break up the text.For reading, it's sticking ads and buttons and gratuituous graphics (lines, boxes, ...) in the middle of an article which make its display on a mobile device difficult to use.Clearly sites with lots of interactivity and lots of actions can be a bit difficult to use -- the MS exchange web interface on an iPhone is usable, but not anyone's first choice, mainly since the action buttons are tiny (need to pinch-and-zoom or have very good aim) and at the top of the screen requiring scrolling back (luckily just a single touch) after reading email -- but it's not that hard to design a layout that works for mobile.Honestly, advertisements are the biggest problem, and sites that (for mobile devices) move the ads to the top + bottom of the text (instead of in the middle) are those which I find myself coming back to on the iPhone.
The others are just too annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767519</id>
	<title>Re:it's all about screen size</title>
	<author>Stevecrox</author>
	<datestamp>1255700820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There nothing wrong with small screens if the websites properly designed. <br> <br>For example BBC news website works fine on my Nokia 5800, the frames aren't fixed in width so the whole thing adjusts to properly fit the screen all I have to do is scroll down the page and set the zoom level to something appropriate. Slashdot does something similar where the comments section width never exceeds the available viewing space's width meaning I can scroll across to the comments section and it will fit nicely on the screen.<br> <br>
The problem is to many people don't use CSS/Javascript properly and don't design their pages to properly dynamically adjust. It seems most web designers expect people to be running computers with screen sizes of 1280*1024 and build their site solely to function on that resolution.<br> <br>
Of course the other problem is flashy nonsense that adds nothing. I honestly think a lot of the mobile sites would be better on the PC. Facebook's iPhone page and Dilbert.com/fast would both be great examples.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There nothing wrong with small screens if the websites properly designed .
For example BBC news website works fine on my Nokia 5800 , the frames are n't fixed in width so the whole thing adjusts to properly fit the screen all I have to do is scroll down the page and set the zoom level to something appropriate .
Slashdot does something similar where the comments section width never exceeds the available viewing space 's width meaning I can scroll across to the comments section and it will fit nicely on the screen .
The problem is to many people do n't use CSS/Javascript properly and do n't design their pages to properly dynamically adjust .
It seems most web designers expect people to be running computers with screen sizes of 1280 * 1024 and build their site solely to function on that resolution .
Of course the other problem is flashy nonsense that adds nothing .
I honestly think a lot of the mobile sites would be better on the PC .
Facebook 's iPhone page and Dilbert.com/fast would both be great examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There nothing wrong with small screens if the websites properly designed.
For example BBC news website works fine on my Nokia 5800, the frames aren't fixed in width so the whole thing adjusts to properly fit the screen all I have to do is scroll down the page and set the zoom level to something appropriate.
Slashdot does something similar where the comments section width never exceeds the available viewing space's width meaning I can scroll across to the comments section and it will fit nicely on the screen.
The problem is to many people don't use CSS/Javascript properly and don't design their pages to properly dynamically adjust.
It seems most web designers expect people to be running computers with screen sizes of 1280*1024 and build their site solely to function on that resolution.
Of course the other problem is flashy nonsense that adds nothing.
I honestly think a lot of the mobile sites would be better on the PC.
Facebook's iPhone page and Dilbert.com/fast would both be great examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768811</id>
	<title>Convergence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is totally wrong; the way mobiles interact with the web is converging with the traditional desktops; there won't be a need for two separate tracks of development except from a pure usability perspective (which has nothing to do with standards or client side technologies). Sure, you can argue that things should be cleaner and tidier (less javascript, flash, whatever) but the driver for that should not be to adapt to a specific set of viewing devices (which will likely change anyways over time)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is totally wrong ; the way mobiles interact with the web is converging with the traditional desktops ; there wo n't be a need for two separate tracks of development except from a pure usability perspective ( which has nothing to do with standards or client side technologies ) .
Sure , you can argue that things should be cleaner and tidier ( less javascript , flash , whatever ) but the driver for that should not be to adapt to a specific set of viewing devices ( which will likely change anyways over time )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is totally wrong; the way mobiles interact with the web is converging with the traditional desktops; there won't be a need for two separate tracks of development except from a pure usability perspective (which has nothing to do with standards or client side technologies).
Sure, you can argue that things should be cleaner and tidier (less javascript, flash, whatever) but the driver for that should not be to adapt to a specific set of viewing devices (which will likely change anyways over time)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771095</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1255720200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;plug mode="shameless"&gt;<br>I couldn't agree more. Slashdot on mobile devices mostly sucks. I (and others, apparently) have written systems to scrape Slashdot and turn it into something vaguely usable. <a href="http://pixelcity.com/sb/" title="pixelcity.com">Here</a> [pixelcity.com] is a really stripped-down version for BlackBerry and <a href="http://pixelcity.com/s/" title="pixelcity.com">here</a> [pixelcity.com] is a slightly spiffier one for iPhone/Pre/Android/etc. <a href="http://pixelcity.com/slashdot/" title="pixelcity.com">Here</a> [pixelcity.com] is a description of what I did, how, why, and source. Only works for the front page but that's enough to get me my "fix" while standing in line at the store.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>&lt;/plug&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
Slashdot on mobile devices mostly sucks .
I ( and others , apparently ) have written systems to scrape Slashdot and turn it into something vaguely usable .
Here [ pixelcity.com ] is a really stripped-down version for BlackBerry and here [ pixelcity.com ] is a slightly spiffier one for iPhone/Pre/Android/etc .
Here [ pixelcity.com ] is a description of what I did , how , why , and source .
Only works for the front page but that 's enough to get me my " fix " while standing in line at the store .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
Slashdot on mobile devices mostly sucks.
I (and others, apparently) have written systems to scrape Slashdot and turn it into something vaguely usable.
Here [pixelcity.com] is a really stripped-down version for BlackBerry and here [pixelcity.com] is a slightly spiffier one for iPhone/Pre/Android/etc.
Here [pixelcity.com] is a description of what I did, how, why, and source.
Only works for the front page but that's enough to get me my "fix" while standing in line at the store.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29774891</id>
	<title>Poor Article</title>
	<author>julianc</author>
	<datestamp>1255702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem I have with the article is that it is pretty easy to get misled by what's being said, probably because the author wrote the article more to generate a reaction, than to outline what is actually wrong with the mobile web.</p><p>The first mistake that the author makes is to suggest that the mobile web is somehow a 'scaling out' of the desktop web. It isn't. A mobile phone has a particular set of properties which make it significantly different to a desktop browser web experience. It's not just a smaller screen that's attempting to present exactly the same web application as the desktop but in miniature. May people fail to make this distinction, and their web sites/mobile apps reflect that failure.</p><p>If you think this, then you fall into the trap of not recognising the mobile as a unique type of device. For one thing users don't want to spend extended periods browsing on a mobile device, supported technologies are not likely to support 'desktop' level performance, mainly because of the trade-off between battery life and performance. With the current range of mobile devices, the network connections aren't reliable, unless you're fortunate enough to always have a wifi connection. There will always be memory and performance constraints with mobiles, at least for the foreseeable future verse the desktop, thats just the nature of the beast.</p><p>If you know anything about web browser evolution, you'll know that even when just two browsers had most of the market share, serious compatibility issues were everywhere, built for IE, built for Firefox, best experienced in Opera. These days its not as bad for desktop browsers, but it'll take a while for mobile browsers to get compatible with other mobile browsers, let alone desktop browsers as well.</p><p>Can existing web technologies handle it,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... probably if you're a CSS black belt, anything else apart from plain html and your really gonna struggle.</p><p>So, back to the original 'sad state of the mobile web' bit. Does it matter that much at the moment? Probably not. The main options you have are use your desktop browser if a task takes more than a few minutes to complete, or 'there's an app for that' - you just have to find it.</p><p>Strange as it may seem, mobile phones aren't just about mobile web. They're about the convergence of a number of technologies, internet connectivity, phone, sms, music, camera, video, GPS/location, touch and interaction on the move. There's whole new vistas of opportunity for creating new experiences, tools, and services because of what you can now carry around with you in your pocket.</p><p>Sure, you can spend your time worrying about how you're gonna squeeze Amazon.com into the latest version of webkit for the Nokia, or you can spend your time creating solutions you could only have dreamed of a few years back. The mobile web may indeed be sad, but some of us are not that bothered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I have with the article is that it is pretty easy to get misled by what 's being said , probably because the author wrote the article more to generate a reaction , than to outline what is actually wrong with the mobile web.The first mistake that the author makes is to suggest that the mobile web is somehow a 'scaling out ' of the desktop web .
It is n't .
A mobile phone has a particular set of properties which make it significantly different to a desktop browser web experience .
It 's not just a smaller screen that 's attempting to present exactly the same web application as the desktop but in miniature .
May people fail to make this distinction , and their web sites/mobile apps reflect that failure.If you think this , then you fall into the trap of not recognising the mobile as a unique type of device .
For one thing users do n't want to spend extended periods browsing on a mobile device , supported technologies are not likely to support 'desktop ' level performance , mainly because of the trade-off between battery life and performance .
With the current range of mobile devices , the network connections are n't reliable , unless you 're fortunate enough to always have a wifi connection .
There will always be memory and performance constraints with mobiles , at least for the foreseeable future verse the desktop , thats just the nature of the beast.If you know anything about web browser evolution , you 'll know that even when just two browsers had most of the market share , serious compatibility issues were everywhere , built for IE , built for Firefox , best experienced in Opera .
These days its not as bad for desktop browsers , but it 'll take a while for mobile browsers to get compatible with other mobile browsers , let alone desktop browsers as well.Can existing web technologies handle it , ... probably if you 're a CSS black belt , anything else apart from plain html and your really gon na struggle.So , back to the original 'sad state of the mobile web ' bit .
Does it matter that much at the moment ?
Probably not .
The main options you have are use your desktop browser if a task takes more than a few minutes to complete , or 'there 's an app for that ' - you just have to find it.Strange as it may seem , mobile phones are n't just about mobile web .
They 're about the convergence of a number of technologies , internet connectivity , phone , sms , music , camera , video , GPS/location , touch and interaction on the move .
There 's whole new vistas of opportunity for creating new experiences , tools , and services because of what you can now carry around with you in your pocket.Sure , you can spend your time worrying about how you 're gon na squeeze Amazon.com into the latest version of webkit for the Nokia , or you can spend your time creating solutions you could only have dreamed of a few years back .
The mobile web may indeed be sad , but some of us are not that bothered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I have with the article is that it is pretty easy to get misled by what's being said, probably because the author wrote the article more to generate a reaction, than to outline what is actually wrong with the mobile web.The first mistake that the author makes is to suggest that the mobile web is somehow a 'scaling out' of the desktop web.
It isn't.
A mobile phone has a particular set of properties which make it significantly different to a desktop browser web experience.
It's not just a smaller screen that's attempting to present exactly the same web application as the desktop but in miniature.
May people fail to make this distinction, and their web sites/mobile apps reflect that failure.If you think this, then you fall into the trap of not recognising the mobile as a unique type of device.
For one thing users don't want to spend extended periods browsing on a mobile device, supported technologies are not likely to support 'desktop' level performance, mainly because of the trade-off between battery life and performance.
With the current range of mobile devices, the network connections aren't reliable, unless you're fortunate enough to always have a wifi connection.
There will always be memory and performance constraints with mobiles, at least for the foreseeable future verse the desktop, thats just the nature of the beast.If you know anything about web browser evolution, you'll know that even when just two browsers had most of the market share, serious compatibility issues were everywhere, built for IE, built for Firefox, best experienced in Opera.
These days its not as bad for desktop browsers, but it'll take a while for mobile browsers to get compatible with other mobile browsers, let alone desktop browsers as well.Can existing web technologies handle it, ... probably if you're a CSS black belt, anything else apart from plain html and your really gonna struggle.So, back to the original 'sad state of the mobile web' bit.
Does it matter that much at the moment?
Probably not.
The main options you have are use your desktop browser if a task takes more than a few minutes to complete, or 'there's an app for that' - you just have to find it.Strange as it may seem, mobile phones aren't just about mobile web.
They're about the convergence of a number of technologies, internet connectivity, phone, sms, music, camera, video, GPS/location, touch and interaction on the move.
There's whole new vistas of opportunity for creating new experiences, tools, and services because of what you can now carry around with you in your pocket.Sure, you can spend your time worrying about how you're gonna squeeze Amazon.com into the latest version of webkit for the Nokia, or you can spend your time creating solutions you could only have dreamed of a few years back.
The mobile web may indeed be sad, but some of us are not that bothered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771975</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1255724940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to make everything look and behave properly? And on top of all that shit, you also have to make it standards-compliant...</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait, if it's standards-compliant, it would by definition look and behave properly in browsers that are also standards-compliant.  So it sounds to me like you're really having to add extra hacks for bad browsers... which by definition AREN'T standards compliant.</p><p>Why not just do everything standards-compliant in the first place?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to make everything look and behave properly ?
And on top of all that shit , you also have to make it standards-compliant...Wait , if it 's standards-compliant , it would by definition look and behave properly in browsers that are also standards-compliant .
So it sounds to me like you 're really having to add extra hacks for bad browsers... which by definition ARE N'T standards compliant.Why not just do everything standards-compliant in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to make everything look and behave properly?
And on top of all that shit, you also have to make it standards-compliant...Wait, if it's standards-compliant, it would by definition look and behave properly in browsers that are also standards-compliant.
So it sounds to me like you're really having to add extra hacks for bad browsers... which by definition AREN'T standards compliant.Why not just do everything standards-compliant in the first place?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775553</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1255712700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blog.masabi.com/2009/01/how-do-transcoders-affect-https.html" title="masabi.com" rel="nofollow">Not really</a> [masabi.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really [ masabi.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really [masabi.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767365</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>Jellybob</author>
	<datestamp>1255699320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern smartphones can handle just about anything you throw at them. The UI is the problem, since what works on a 22" widescreen monitor, with a keyboard and mouse, doesn't work on a 9" touchscreen.</p><p>We're not going to see alternative mobile UIs going away any time soon, and that in my opinion is a good thing. The desktop version will work if you really want all the features that it comes with, but it's not going to be the optimal way of using things.</p><p>Native mobile applications are also a big factor here, and are often a far better choice so long as you have the man power (or money) to produce them, since they give you a far more targetted UI, which can integrate with a phone's hardware features to provide something even smoother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern smartphones can handle just about anything you throw at them .
The UI is the problem , since what works on a 22 " widescreen monitor , with a keyboard and mouse , does n't work on a 9 " touchscreen.We 're not going to see alternative mobile UIs going away any time soon , and that in my opinion is a good thing .
The desktop version will work if you really want all the features that it comes with , but it 's not going to be the optimal way of using things.Native mobile applications are also a big factor here , and are often a far better choice so long as you have the man power ( or money ) to produce them , since they give you a far more targetted UI , which can integrate with a phone 's hardware features to provide something even smoother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern smartphones can handle just about anything you throw at them.
The UI is the problem, since what works on a 22" widescreen monitor, with a keyboard and mouse, doesn't work on a 9" touchscreen.We're not going to see alternative mobile UIs going away any time soon, and that in my opinion is a good thing.
The desktop version will work if you really want all the features that it comes with, but it's not going to be the optimal way of using things.Native mobile applications are also a big factor here, and are often a far better choice so long as you have the man power (or money) to produce them, since they give you a far more targetted UI, which can integrate with a phone's hardware features to provide something even smoother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768301</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1255706340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My impression is that the solution to the mobile-unfriendly tooling that some companies have chosen is to create an iPhone app for their sites, which I assume is cheaper than retooling their real Web sites to actually work well for mobile platforms. Do you think this is an accurate assessment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My impression is that the solution to the mobile-unfriendly tooling that some companies have chosen is to create an iPhone app for their sites , which I assume is cheaper than retooling their real Web sites to actually work well for mobile platforms .
Do you think this is an accurate assessment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My impression is that the solution to the mobile-unfriendly tooling that some companies have chosen is to create an iPhone app for their sites, which I assume is cheaper than retooling their real Web sites to actually work well for mobile platforms.
Do you think this is an accurate assessment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29793133</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255962720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a bunch of mobile versions of wikipedia. Check the links <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mobile\_access" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia:Mobile access</a> [wikipedia.org]. Some of them are "offline", i.e. work with their own copy of the Wikipedia data, others grab the original pages from wikipedia.org and reformat them in real time. Wikipedia is running their own transcoder service on e.g. en.mobile.wikipedia.org.

There's also a number of true offline viewers that allow you to copy the wikipedia data on your handset and run a viewer application from there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a bunch of mobile versions of wikipedia .
Check the links Wikipedia : Mobile access [ wikipedia.org ] .
Some of them are " offline " , i.e .
work with their own copy of the Wikipedia data , others grab the original pages from wikipedia.org and reformat them in real time .
Wikipedia is running their own transcoder service on e.g .
en.mobile.wikipedia.org . There 's also a number of true offline viewers that allow you to copy the wikipedia data on your handset and run a viewer application from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a bunch of mobile versions of wikipedia.
Check the links Wikipedia:Mobile access [wikipedia.org].
Some of them are "offline", i.e.
work with their own copy of the Wikipedia data, others grab the original pages from wikipedia.org and reformat them in real time.
Wikipedia is running their own transcoder service on e.g.
en.mobile.wikipedia.org.

There's also a number of true offline viewers that allow you to copy the wikipedia data on your handset and run a viewer application from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767537</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1255701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah for sure, there needs to be more emphasis on standards compliance and simple pages that convey information. I'm not going to sit though a 20 second flash intro and then fight my way though animated menus that render behind other page elements. If your website can't serve it's function as a means to convey information then I'm going elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah for sure , there needs to be more emphasis on standards compliance and simple pages that convey information .
I 'm not going to sit though a 20 second flash intro and then fight my way though animated menus that render behind other page elements .
If your website ca n't serve it 's function as a means to convey information then I 'm going elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah for sure, there needs to be more emphasis on standards compliance and simple pages that convey information.
I'm not going to sit though a 20 second flash intro and then fight my way though animated menus that render behind other page elements.
If your website can't serve it's function as a means to convey information then I'm going elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768481</id>
	<title>There are many problems w/MCallisters article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an important debate, but Neil McAllister's article suffers from a number of problems.  For example, it references the recently popular <a href="http://www.quirksmode.org/webkit.html" title="quirksmode.org" rel="nofollow">Webkit Comparison Table</a> [quirksmode.org] along with Peter-Paul Koch's claim that <em>there is no &ldquo;WebKit on Mobile&rdquo;</em>.  The article didn't point out that some people like Alex Russel have <a href="http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/2009/10/webkit-mobile-and-progress/" title="dojotoolkit.org" rel="nofollow">dug deeper</a> [dojotoolkit.org] and have found that the facts don't support PPK's conclusions as strongly as one might think.  Yes, if you include lots of older devices, there's quite a divergence in Webkit deployments, but what PPK and Neil McAllister don't say is that compatibility is much better on devices that ship recent versions, it's especially good for core features, and it's improving all the time.
</p><p>
McAllister also implies that the mobile Web is in trouble because "On my BlackBerry, JavaScript performance is abysmal".  Using that argument, I can prove that Windows will never be successful, because I could in the early days show you PC's that ran it with abysmal performance.  The potential of technologies like Javascript needs to be evaluated using the best implementation you can find; that shows what's possible.  He does go on to say: "And even when a handset vendor does improve JavaScript performance, as Apple did with iPhone OS 3.0, it's a relative increase."  Aren't they all? "You're still dealing with a poky handheld processor (and in Apple's case, one that developers speculate is too feeble for Flash or Java)."
Uh, so now the reason that the HTML and Javascript will fail is that ARM processors are too slow to run Java?  What's the connection I'm missing?  The fact is, that there are some pretty good AJAX sites for mobile, so we know the ARM processors are good enough to run that Javascript.  Try, for example, going to http://www.gmail.com using Safari on your iPhone. Not a usable experience?  Even works offline using HTML 5 local storage (not Gears).  Also, even if Javascript performance were somehow related to Java performance, I bet the Android folks would like to hear that Java doesn't run right on ARM processors, since the entire upper level infrastructure of Android, including user applications, is built on just that combination (as optimized using the Dalvik VM).
</p><p>Unfortunately, articles like this can do real damage.  Many people who are not expert in these things are struggling to figure out which mobile application development models are going to be workable.
I happen to believe that the Mobile Web will, like the desktop embodiment of the Web, grow as disruptive technologies tend to: from something that's a bit shaky at first to the model that dominates?  Why? Because unlike Mr. McAllister, I believe that the underlying processors and system technologies are capable of running it, and the value of a model that is fully cross-platform, can support zero install operation (you might want to install a mapping application to find a restaurant, but you almost surely don't want to install the restaurant's application to read menus or get discount coupons), can also scale to support installable applications (<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">Widgets</a> [w3.org]) and offline operation, is compelling.  Furthermore, as has been the case for years, the Web has the unique value of allowing you to link to the <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-knew-web-was-big.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">over 1 trillion</a> [blogspot.com] Web pages, without jumping out from some proprietary application container to a Web browser.
Whether I'm right about the likely success of the mobile Web or not, this whole question deserves a much more careful analysis than McAllister's article provides.
Unfortunately, there will be many people who read it and jump to the conclusion that the mobile Web is failing.  A shame.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an important debate , but Neil McAllister 's article suffers from a number of problems .
For example , it references the recently popular Webkit Comparison Table [ quirksmode.org ] along with Peter-Paul Koch 's claim that there is no    WebKit on Mobile    .
The article did n't point out that some people like Alex Russel have dug deeper [ dojotoolkit.org ] and have found that the facts do n't support PPK 's conclusions as strongly as one might think .
Yes , if you include lots of older devices , there 's quite a divergence in Webkit deployments , but what PPK and Neil McAllister do n't say is that compatibility is much better on devices that ship recent versions , it 's especially good for core features , and it 's improving all the time .
McAllister also implies that the mobile Web is in trouble because " On my BlackBerry , JavaScript performance is abysmal " .
Using that argument , I can prove that Windows will never be successful , because I could in the early days show you PC 's that ran it with abysmal performance .
The potential of technologies like Javascript needs to be evaluated using the best implementation you can find ; that shows what 's possible .
He does go on to say : " And even when a handset vendor does improve JavaScript performance , as Apple did with iPhone OS 3.0 , it 's a relative increase .
" Are n't they all ?
" You 're still dealing with a poky handheld processor ( and in Apple 's case , one that developers speculate is too feeble for Flash or Java ) .
" Uh , so now the reason that the HTML and Javascript will fail is that ARM processors are too slow to run Java ?
What 's the connection I 'm missing ?
The fact is , that there are some pretty good AJAX sites for mobile , so we know the ARM processors are good enough to run that Javascript .
Try , for example , going to http : //www.gmail.com using Safari on your iPhone .
Not a usable experience ?
Even works offline using HTML 5 local storage ( not Gears ) .
Also , even if Javascript performance were somehow related to Java performance , I bet the Android folks would like to hear that Java does n't run right on ARM processors , since the entire upper level infrastructure of Android , including user applications , is built on just that combination ( as optimized using the Dalvik VM ) .
Unfortunately , articles like this can do real damage .
Many people who are not expert in these things are struggling to figure out which mobile application development models are going to be workable .
I happen to believe that the Mobile Web will , like the desktop embodiment of the Web , grow as disruptive technologies tend to : from something that 's a bit shaky at first to the model that dominates ?
Why ? Because unlike Mr. McAllister , I believe that the underlying processors and system technologies are capable of running it , and the value of a model that is fully cross-platform , can support zero install operation ( you might want to install a mapping application to find a restaurant , but you almost surely do n't want to install the restaurant 's application to read menus or get discount coupons ) , can also scale to support installable applications ( Widgets [ w3.org ] ) and offline operation , is compelling .
Furthermore , as has been the case for years , the Web has the unique value of allowing you to link to the over 1 trillion [ blogspot.com ] Web pages , without jumping out from some proprietary application container to a Web browser .
Whether I 'm right about the likely success of the mobile Web or not , this whole question deserves a much more careful analysis than McAllister 's article provides .
Unfortunately , there will be many people who read it and jump to the conclusion that the mobile Web is failing .
A shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an important debate, but Neil McAllister's article suffers from a number of problems.
For example, it references the recently popular Webkit Comparison Table [quirksmode.org] along with Peter-Paul Koch's claim that there is no “WebKit on Mobile”.
The article didn't point out that some people like Alex Russel have dug deeper [dojotoolkit.org] and have found that the facts don't support PPK's conclusions as strongly as one might think.
Yes, if you include lots of older devices, there's quite a divergence in Webkit deployments, but what PPK and Neil McAllister don't say is that compatibility is much better on devices that ship recent versions, it's especially good for core features, and it's improving all the time.
McAllister also implies that the mobile Web is in trouble because "On my BlackBerry, JavaScript performance is abysmal".
Using that argument, I can prove that Windows will never be successful, because I could in the early days show you PC's that ran it with abysmal performance.
The potential of technologies like Javascript needs to be evaluated using the best implementation you can find; that shows what's possible.
He does go on to say: "And even when a handset vendor does improve JavaScript performance, as Apple did with iPhone OS 3.0, it's a relative increase.
"  Aren't they all?
"You're still dealing with a poky handheld processor (and in Apple's case, one that developers speculate is too feeble for Flash or Java).
"
Uh, so now the reason that the HTML and Javascript will fail is that ARM processors are too slow to run Java?
What's the connection I'm missing?
The fact is, that there are some pretty good AJAX sites for mobile, so we know the ARM processors are good enough to run that Javascript.
Try, for example, going to http://www.gmail.com using Safari on your iPhone.
Not a usable experience?
Even works offline using HTML 5 local storage (not Gears).
Also, even if Javascript performance were somehow related to Java performance, I bet the Android folks would like to hear that Java doesn't run right on ARM processors, since the entire upper level infrastructure of Android, including user applications, is built on just that combination (as optimized using the Dalvik VM).
Unfortunately, articles like this can do real damage.
Many people who are not expert in these things are struggling to figure out which mobile application development models are going to be workable.
I happen to believe that the Mobile Web will, like the desktop embodiment of the Web, grow as disruptive technologies tend to: from something that's a bit shaky at first to the model that dominates?
Why? Because unlike Mr. McAllister, I believe that the underlying processors and system technologies are capable of running it, and the value of a model that is fully cross-platform, can support zero install operation (you might want to install a mapping application to find a restaurant, but you almost surely don't want to install the restaurant's application to read menus or get discount coupons), can also scale to support installable applications (Widgets [w3.org]) and offline operation, is compelling.
Furthermore, as has been the case for years, the Web has the unique value of allowing you to link to the over 1 trillion [blogspot.com] Web pages, without jumping out from some proprietary application container to a Web browser.
Whether I'm right about the likely success of the mobile Web or not, this whole question deserves a much more careful analysis than McAllister's article provides.
Unfortunately, there will be many people who read it and jump to the conclusion that the mobile Web is failing.
A shame.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770213</id>
	<title>Telephones are not very good for viewing the web</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255715640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>much the same way that my car does not make very good toast.</p><p>duh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>much the same way that my car does not make very good toast.duh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>much the same way that my car does not make very good toast.duh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767813</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>None of those programs even have a core that's close to being mobile enabled, and no one using them is going to create one.</p></div><p>I've never looked at any of those, but with Drupal it's fairly trivial to create an acceptable mobile experience.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly don't know what the hell they're doing, but you are only displaying your own ignorance.</p></div><p>You're being a stupid ass. I'm talking about shit like using javascript on a link that just opens a new page, when an HREF would have done as well and can be manipulated by JS through the DOM. I'm talking about shit like using flash for rollover links. I'm not talking about shit like <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406909&amp;cid=29767633" title="slashdot.org">google docs</a> [slashdot.org], which can reasonably be expected to fail on castrated browsers. The vast majority of websites out there would work fine on a mobile browser if they simply made intelligent use of CSS, and less unnecessary use of javascript. Every time I have to have javascript to submit a form that results in a page load anyway, I know that somewhere out there a big fucking idiot designed a website. Every time I have to load a flash movie to navigate a website, the web dies a little.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.</p></div><p>Again, in Drupal it's simple enough as having a mobile theme, using one of the many canned methods available to make sure that mobile users get to see it, and you're done. Since mobile browsers are simple, mobile themes are simple, and it's little extra work. This is part of the whole point of using a CMS, and if yours doesn't let you trivially support displaying ordinary content to mobile devices then it's pathetic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of those programs even have a core that 's close to being mobile enabled , and no one using them is going to create one.I 've never looked at any of those , but with Drupal it 's fairly trivial to create an acceptable mobile experience.You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly do n't know what the hell they 're doing , but you are only displaying your own ignorance.You 're being a stupid ass .
I 'm talking about shit like using javascript on a link that just opens a new page , when an HREF would have done as well and can be manipulated by JS through the DOM .
I 'm talking about shit like using flash for rollover links .
I 'm not talking about shit like google docs [ slashdot.org ] , which can reasonably be expected to fail on castrated browsers .
The vast majority of websites out there would work fine on a mobile browser if they simply made intelligent use of CSS , and less unnecessary use of javascript .
Every time I have to have javascript to submit a form that results in a page load anyway , I know that somewhere out there a big fucking idiot designed a website .
Every time I have to load a flash movie to navigate a website , the web dies a little.I can tell you from years of experience , unless it 's part of their business model clients go for option 3 : fuck the mobile web.Again , in Drupal it 's simple enough as having a mobile theme , using one of the many canned methods available to make sure that mobile users get to see it , and you 're done .
Since mobile browsers are simple , mobile themes are simple , and it 's little extra work .
This is part of the whole point of using a CMS , and if yours does n't let you trivially support displaying ordinary content to mobile devices then it 's pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of those programs even have a core that's close to being mobile enabled, and no one using them is going to create one.I've never looked at any of those, but with Drupal it's fairly trivial to create an acceptable mobile experience.You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly don't know what the hell they're doing, but you are only displaying your own ignorance.You're being a stupid ass.
I'm talking about shit like using javascript on a link that just opens a new page, when an HREF would have done as well and can be manipulated by JS through the DOM.
I'm talking about shit like using flash for rollover links.
I'm not talking about shit like google docs [slashdot.org], which can reasonably be expected to fail on castrated browsers.
The vast majority of websites out there would work fine on a mobile browser if they simply made intelligent use of CSS, and less unnecessary use of javascript.
Every time I have to have javascript to submit a form that results in a page load anyway, I know that somewhere out there a big fucking idiot designed a website.
Every time I have to load a flash movie to navigate a website, the web dies a little.I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.Again, in Drupal it's simple enough as having a mobile theme, using one of the many canned methods available to make sure that mobile users get to see it, and you're done.
Since mobile browsers are simple, mobile themes are simple, and it's little extra work.
This is part of the whole point of using a CMS, and if yours doesn't let you trivially support displaying ordinary content to mobile devices then it's pathetic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770027</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>dwandy</author>
	<datestamp>1255714860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My HTC Magic renders<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. perfectly - the browser even sticks* and fits** the comments onto the screen-size.<br>Sounds like it may be time to get a better phone if you're intent on surfing...<p>
<i>*by this I mean that in the nesting of comments I need to move slightly to the right to see the next comment, and as I slide it "sticks" when the comment is fully (width-wise) inside the screen.</i> <br>
<i>**by this I mean that to read a comment I don't ever need to scroll left/right as I'm reading (just up/down) even though the whole page is wider than my screen.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My HTC Magic renders / .
perfectly - the browser even sticks * and fits * * the comments onto the screen-size.Sounds like it may be time to get a better phone if you 're intent on surfing.. . * by this I mean that in the nesting of comments I need to move slightly to the right to see the next comment , and as I slide it " sticks " when the comment is fully ( width-wise ) inside the screen .
* * by this I mean that to read a comment I do n't ever need to scroll left/right as I 'm reading ( just up/down ) even though the whole page is wider than my screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My HTC Magic renders /.
perfectly - the browser even sticks* and fits** the comments onto the screen-size.Sounds like it may be time to get a better phone if you're intent on surfing...
*by this I mean that in the nesting of comments I need to move slightly to the right to see the next comment, and as I slide it "sticks" when the comment is fully (width-wise) inside the screen.
**by this I mean that to read a comment I don't ever need to scroll left/right as I'm reading (just up/down) even though the whole page is wider than my screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29773849</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255693200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H.264 is listed as a supported codec on the spec sheet.  I thought some of multimedia playback in Maemo5 was supposed to utilize the DSP anyway.  Adobe is working on releasing flash 10 for ARM next year so that may bring performance enhancements as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 is listed as a supported codec on the spec sheet .
I thought some of multimedia playback in Maemo5 was supposed to utilize the DSP anyway .
Adobe is working on releasing flash 10 for ARM next year so that may bring performance enhancements as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 is listed as a supported codec on the spec sheet.
I thought some of multimedia playback in Maemo5 was supposed to utilize the DSP anyway.
Adobe is working on releasing flash 10 for ARM next year so that may bring performance enhancements as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769943</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>Asdanf</author>
	<datestamp>1255714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My day job is developing sites for the mobile web, so believe me when I tell you that the Pearl's web browser is a piece of shit.  Have you made sure to go into settings and enable css and tables, which are disabled by default?

I don't blame any website that doesn't render well on 2+-year-old BlackBerries.  They have the worst browsers out there (yes, worse than much cheaper/simpler phones).  If you want to browse the web, get a phone with a browser that shows some modicum of standards-compliance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My day job is developing sites for the mobile web , so believe me when I tell you that the Pearl 's web browser is a piece of shit .
Have you made sure to go into settings and enable css and tables , which are disabled by default ?
I do n't blame any website that does n't render well on 2 + -year-old BlackBerries .
They have the worst browsers out there ( yes , worse than much cheaper/simpler phones ) .
If you want to browse the web , get a phone with a browser that shows some modicum of standards-compliance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My day job is developing sites for the mobile web, so believe me when I tell you that the Pearl's web browser is a piece of shit.
Have you made sure to go into settings and enable css and tables, which are disabled by default?
I don't blame any website that doesn't render well on 2+-year-old BlackBerries.
They have the worst browsers out there (yes, worse than much cheaper/simpler phones).
If you want to browse the web, get a phone with a browser that shows some modicum of standards-compliance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29772143</id>
	<title>Devices and web</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255725720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only the mobile phone producers could agree on some kind of a web standard for the bloody phones. Currently almost every single device model has it's own (almost unique) hacked version of either Mozilla or Safari. It would be all nice and good, but to make those browsers render something at a reasonable speed things are stripped out from the rendering engines and that causes a whole lot of problems. Even if it's a CSS only site, no JS or Flash (actually, forget about Flash in sites for the regular mobile, never mind if you're a masochist), the rendering across the devices is noting short of random. If one device will show the page correctly, then a different device in the same category but from a different manufacturer ("same" browser) might only display gibberish.<br>I've worked with this stuff for a good number of years now and even with the latest and greatest devices there are problems. I can only hope that the devices will become powerful enough to support a full-blown browser without killing the poor phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only the mobile phone producers could agree on some kind of a web standard for the bloody phones .
Currently almost every single device model has it 's own ( almost unique ) hacked version of either Mozilla or Safari .
It would be all nice and good , but to make those browsers render something at a reasonable speed things are stripped out from the rendering engines and that causes a whole lot of problems .
Even if it 's a CSS only site , no JS or Flash ( actually , forget about Flash in sites for the regular mobile , never mind if you 're a masochist ) , the rendering across the devices is noting short of random .
If one device will show the page correctly , then a different device in the same category but from a different manufacturer ( " same " browser ) might only display gibberish.I 've worked with this stuff for a good number of years now and even with the latest and greatest devices there are problems .
I can only hope that the devices will become powerful enough to support a full-blown browser without killing the poor phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only the mobile phone producers could agree on some kind of a web standard for the bloody phones.
Currently almost every single device model has it's own (almost unique) hacked version of either Mozilla or Safari.
It would be all nice and good, but to make those browsers render something at a reasonable speed things are stripped out from the rendering engines and that causes a whole lot of problems.
Even if it's a CSS only site, no JS or Flash (actually, forget about Flash in sites for the regular mobile, never mind if you're a masochist), the rendering across the devices is noting short of random.
If one device will show the page correctly, then a different device in the same category but from a different manufacturer ("same" browser) might only display gibberish.I've worked with this stuff for a good number of years now and even with the latest and greatest devices there are problems.
I can only hope that the devices will become powerful enough to support a full-blown browser without killing the poor phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770203</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>cnvandev</author>
	<datestamp>1255715640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And gues wat? NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool". Stop trying to impress me, because you're not going to do it with a "cool" web site. You'll only annoy me. You're putting the cart before the horse.</p></div><p>Clearly, you've never met a teenager. There's different website styles for different people; some people want things that are flashy and cool, some people just want to check their e-mail. The point is applying the same design philosophy to both projects would be crazy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And gues wat ?
NOBODY visits any web site because it 's " cool " .
Stop trying to impress me , because you 're not going to do it with a " cool " web site .
You 'll only annoy me .
You 're putting the cart before the horse.Clearly , you 've never met a teenager .
There 's different website styles for different people ; some people want things that are flashy and cool , some people just want to check their e-mail .
The point is applying the same design philosophy to both projects would be crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And gues wat?
NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool".
Stop trying to impress me, because you're not going to do it with a "cool" web site.
You'll only annoy me.
You're putting the cart before the horse.Clearly, you've never met a teenager.
There's different website styles for different people; some people want things that are flashy and cool, some people just want to check their e-mail.
The point is applying the same design philosophy to both projects would be crazy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769111</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>FyRE666</author>
	<datestamp>1255710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news: Beer is crap when you serve it in a wine glass.</p><p>It's not just the design and layout, the content and navigation requirements are often different for mobile and desktop browsers. Sure you can cram a long story into a 4" screen, but a mobile user often has different requirements (and time) to a desktop user. A mobile version of a news site would probably want to serve abbreviated or rewritten versions of the stories, or geo-location based stories, or whatever.</p><p>One size doe not fit all. Get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news : Beer is crap when you serve it in a wine glass.It 's not just the design and layout , the content and navigation requirements are often different for mobile and desktop browsers .
Sure you can cram a long story into a 4 " screen , but a mobile user often has different requirements ( and time ) to a desktop user .
A mobile version of a news site would probably want to serve abbreviated or rewritten versions of the stories , or geo-location based stories , or whatever.One size doe not fit all .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news: Beer is crap when you serve it in a wine glass.It's not just the design and layout, the content and navigation requirements are often different for mobile and desktop browsers.
Sure you can cram a long story into a 4" screen, but a mobile user often has different requirements (and time) to a desktop user.
A mobile version of a news site would probably want to serve abbreviated or rewritten versions of the stories, or geo-location based stories, or whatever.One size doe not fit all.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768251</id>
	<title>Too Late!</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1255705980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone has pretty much killed the Mobile Web Page. The WAP protocol is dead. Other phones are beginning to support full page web browsing. By the end of next year, even Windows Mobile phones will have the full sized IE8 browser embedded in them. Many sites are even optimizing their webpages for the small screen mobile devices. Some have switched to narrow columns on their pages which allow users to quickly zoom in on the column and read an article. Some have specialized websites that are "mobile friendly". The best ones use CSS to determine whether or not you're a phone, and then display their website in an optimized fashion. (Take a look at Google's various sites or weather.com).</p><p>The mobile web is finally taking off because someone finally realized that you need a device that makes surfing the web practical and get a few million people to use it. Once sites realize that people are using their phones to browse them, these sites make phone optimized pages.</p><p>The only dark side to the mobile web are specialized phone apps. There are too many websites, that instead of creating mobile-friendly versions of their site, create a specialized iPhone app. This unfortunately takes pressure off the company to produce a truly mobile app. Flightaware.com is an excellent example of this. Their website is hard to maneuver around on an iPhone, so they made an app (which has fewer features) instead of improving their website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone has pretty much killed the Mobile Web Page .
The WAP protocol is dead .
Other phones are beginning to support full page web browsing .
By the end of next year , even Windows Mobile phones will have the full sized IE8 browser embedded in them .
Many sites are even optimizing their webpages for the small screen mobile devices .
Some have switched to narrow columns on their pages which allow users to quickly zoom in on the column and read an article .
Some have specialized websites that are " mobile friendly " .
The best ones use CSS to determine whether or not you 're a phone , and then display their website in an optimized fashion .
( Take a look at Google 's various sites or weather.com ) .The mobile web is finally taking off because someone finally realized that you need a device that makes surfing the web practical and get a few million people to use it .
Once sites realize that people are using their phones to browse them , these sites make phone optimized pages.The only dark side to the mobile web are specialized phone apps .
There are too many websites , that instead of creating mobile-friendly versions of their site , create a specialized iPhone app .
This unfortunately takes pressure off the company to produce a truly mobile app .
Flightaware.com is an excellent example of this .
Their website is hard to maneuver around on an iPhone , so they made an app ( which has fewer features ) instead of improving their website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone has pretty much killed the Mobile Web Page.
The WAP protocol is dead.
Other phones are beginning to support full page web browsing.
By the end of next year, even Windows Mobile phones will have the full sized IE8 browser embedded in them.
Many sites are even optimizing their webpages for the small screen mobile devices.
Some have switched to narrow columns on their pages which allow users to quickly zoom in on the column and read an article.
Some have specialized websites that are "mobile friendly".
The best ones use CSS to determine whether or not you're a phone, and then display their website in an optimized fashion.
(Take a look at Google's various sites or weather.com).The mobile web is finally taking off because someone finally realized that you need a device that makes surfing the web practical and get a few million people to use it.
Once sites realize that people are using their phones to browse them, these sites make phone optimized pages.The only dark side to the mobile web are specialized phone apps.
There are too many websites, that instead of creating mobile-friendly versions of their site, create a specialized iPhone app.
This unfortunately takes pressure off the company to produce a truly mobile app.
Flightaware.com is an excellent example of this.
Their website is hard to maneuver around on an iPhone, so they made an app (which has fewer features) instead of improving their website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415</id>
	<title>is this why /. is the sucks to read on my iphone?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1255699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>except for the flash based ones, slashdot is the most annoying to navigate on my iphone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>except for the flash based ones , slashdot is the most annoying to navigate on my iphone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except for the flash based ones, slashdot is the most annoying to navigate on my iphone</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770183</id>
	<title>Wah...Wah...</title>
	<author>akabigbro</author>
	<datestamp>1255715520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid web developers don't even know how to use their tools and so they blame everyone else. This is why CSS was created. END OF STORY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid web developers do n't even know how to use their tools and so they blame everyone else .
This is why CSS was created .
END OF STORY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid web developers don't even know how to use their tools and so they blame everyone else.
This is why CSS was created.
END OF STORY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769887</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And stop referring my phone to a "mobile" version automatically with no opt out. What's currently driving me crazy is not Flash (I avoid those sites anyway) but being forced into a mobile (read: limited) version of the full site when my phone is perfectly capable of rendering all the images, menus, etc.</p><p>The "dumbed down" version should be an option--maybe even the default option--but quit using my user agent string to force me into the mobile site ghetto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And stop referring my phone to a " mobile " version automatically with no opt out .
What 's currently driving me crazy is not Flash ( I avoid those sites anyway ) but being forced into a mobile ( read : limited ) version of the full site when my phone is perfectly capable of rendering all the images , menus , etc.The " dumbed down " version should be an option--maybe even the default option--but quit using my user agent string to force me into the mobile site ghetto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And stop referring my phone to a "mobile" version automatically with no opt out.
What's currently driving me crazy is not Flash (I avoid those sites anyway) but being forced into a mobile (read: limited) version of the full site when my phone is perfectly capable of rendering all the images, menus, etc.The "dumbed down" version should be an option--maybe even the default option--but quit using my user agent string to force me into the mobile site ghetto.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769377</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1255711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Every time I have to have javascript to submit a form that results in a page load anyway, I know that somewhere out there a big fucking idiot designed a website. Every time I have to load a flash movie to navigate a website, the web dies a little.</i></p><p>This is a little harsh.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net forms and their button controls frequently use javascript for client side validation before server side validation on submit.  They fail gracefully in browsers with javascript disabled.  That's not developer incompetence, that's a good thing.  It prevents unnecessary page reloads, server hits, etc.  Flash navigation I'm a not a fan of, but it does often look nicer than anything that can be done without it.  Among other things I think people avoid it now for spidering reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I have to have javascript to submit a form that results in a page load anyway , I know that somewhere out there a big fucking idiot designed a website .
Every time I have to load a flash movie to navigate a website , the web dies a little.This is a little harsh .
.Net forms and their button controls frequently use javascript for client side validation before server side validation on submit .
They fail gracefully in browsers with javascript disabled .
That 's not developer incompetence , that 's a good thing .
It prevents unnecessary page reloads , server hits , etc .
Flash navigation I 'm a not a fan of , but it does often look nicer than anything that can be done without it .
Among other things I think people avoid it now for spidering reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I have to have javascript to submit a form that results in a page load anyway, I know that somewhere out there a big fucking idiot designed a website.
Every time I have to load a flash movie to navigate a website, the web dies a little.This is a little harsh.
.Net forms and their button controls frequently use javascript for client side validation before server side validation on submit.
They fail gracefully in browsers with javascript disabled.
That's not developer incompetence, that's a good thing.
It prevents unnecessary page reloads, server hits, etc.
Flash navigation I'm a not a fan of, but it does often look nicer than anything that can be done without it.
Among other things I think people avoid it now for spidering reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767779</id>
	<title>Re:is this why /. is the sucks to read on my iphon</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1255702980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really? I'm posting from my iPod touch, and I've always found slashdot to be one of the easiest sites to use on this. Hell, it beats most special iPhone mobile versions of sites in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really ?
I 'm posting from my iPod touch , and I 've always found slashdot to be one of the easiest sites to use on this .
Hell , it beats most special iPhone mobile versions of sites in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really?
I'm posting from my iPod touch, and I've always found slashdot to be one of the easiest sites to use on this.
Hell, it beats most special iPhone mobile versions of sites in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</id>
	<title>Outdated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255698900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this really true anymore? With devices like the Nokia N900 being released, that has full-featured browsers that can handle everything a desktop browsers can, I doubt this will be an issue much longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really true anymore ?
With devices like the Nokia N900 being released , that has full-featured browsers that can handle everything a desktop browsers can , I doubt this will be an issue much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really true anymore?
With devices like the Nokia N900 being released, that has full-featured browsers that can handle everything a desktop browsers can, I doubt this will be an issue much longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768435</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may wanna read up on mobile, many don't fully support CSS, and what's worse they don't document what they cut out.  So it's not as simple as just using CSS and not use javascript/flash.  Though I agree whole heartedly, stop the heavy use of flash and javascript while we're at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may wan na read up on mobile , many do n't fully support CSS , and what 's worse they do n't document what they cut out .
So it 's not as simple as just using CSS and not use javascript/flash .
Though I agree whole heartedly , stop the heavy use of flash and javascript while we 're at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may wanna read up on mobile, many don't fully support CSS, and what's worse they don't document what they cut out.
So it's not as simple as just using CSS and not use javascript/flash.
Though I agree whole heartedly, stop the heavy use of flash and javascript while we're at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767377</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone uses the same rendering engine as Safari.  The Nokia 770 shipped with a version of Opera that could render almost everything that the desktop one could, but was painfully slow with some sites (e.g. Google Maps), but that was more to do with the slow CPU than anything else.  My cheap Nokia phone has a WebKit browser too, and the tiny screen is more of a limiting factor than the browser's capabilities.  Flash support on mobile devices has been a little tricky until not, but now Adobe is pushing hard to get full Flash supported on everything with an ARM CPU that's going to stop being a problem soon.  In terms of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, handheld devices are just as capable as ten-year-old desktops with small screens running modern software.  </p><p>
Note, however, that TFA talked about web apps, rather than web sites.  Web apps are typically very JavaScript heavy, and so may have problems on mobile devices if the JS engine can't keep up.  This is completely different to the WAP era, however.  Back then, mobile browsers couldn't browse normal sites.  Now they can, but they may experience problems on a few web apps that do a lot of the client side (these didn't even exist in the WAP days).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone uses the same rendering engine as Safari .
The Nokia 770 shipped with a version of Opera that could render almost everything that the desktop one could , but was painfully slow with some sites ( e.g .
Google Maps ) , but that was more to do with the slow CPU than anything else .
My cheap Nokia phone has a WebKit browser too , and the tiny screen is more of a limiting factor than the browser 's capabilities .
Flash support on mobile devices has been a little tricky until not , but now Adobe is pushing hard to get full Flash supported on everything with an ARM CPU that 's going to stop being a problem soon .
In terms of HTML , CSS , and JavaScript , handheld devices are just as capable as ten-year-old desktops with small screens running modern software .
Note , however , that TFA talked about web apps , rather than web sites .
Web apps are typically very JavaScript heavy , and so may have problems on mobile devices if the JS engine ca n't keep up .
This is completely different to the WAP era , however .
Back then , mobile browsers could n't browse normal sites .
Now they can , but they may experience problems on a few web apps that do a lot of the client side ( these did n't even exist in the WAP days ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone uses the same rendering engine as Safari.
The Nokia 770 shipped with a version of Opera that could render almost everything that the desktop one could, but was painfully slow with some sites (e.g.
Google Maps), but that was more to do with the slow CPU than anything else.
My cheap Nokia phone has a WebKit browser too, and the tiny screen is more of a limiting factor than the browser's capabilities.
Flash support on mobile devices has been a little tricky until not, but now Adobe is pushing hard to get full Flash supported on everything with an ARM CPU that's going to stop being a problem soon.
In terms of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, handheld devices are just as capable as ten-year-old desktops with small screens running modern software.
Note, however, that TFA talked about web apps, rather than web sites.
Web apps are typically very JavaScript heavy, and so may have problems on mobile devices if the JS engine can't keep up.
This is completely different to the WAP era, however.
Back then, mobile browsers couldn't browse normal sites.
Now they can, but they may experience problems on a few web apps that do a lot of the client side (these didn't even exist in the WAP days).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775051</id>
	<title>Re:Wish the iPhone didn't support Javascript so we</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255704240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AJAX exists because when Microsoft put it into hotmail it was so vastly successful that it actually got implemented as a standard.</p></div><p>what the fuck? rewriting history are we? as i remember it gmail's use of ajax that inspired MS to make hotmail slightly less shitty, many months later of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AJAX exists because when Microsoft put it into hotmail it was so vastly successful that it actually got implemented as a standard.what the fuck ?
rewriting history are we ?
as i remember it gmail 's use of ajax that inspired MS to make hotmail slightly less shitty , many months later of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AJAX exists because when Microsoft put it into hotmail it was so vastly successful that it actually got implemented as a standard.what the fuck?
rewriting history are we?
as i remember it gmail's use of ajax that inspired MS to make hotmail slightly less shitty, many months later of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768283</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1255706160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it crashes your phone, there's something wrong with your phone, not the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it crashes your phone , there 's something wrong with your phone , not the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it crashes your phone, there's something wrong with your phone, not the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767475</id>
	<title>Re:it's all about screen size</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255700400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but for anything more complex you need a screen at least 1024*768</i></p><p>Funny, back in the nineties my computer screen's resolution was 640x480 and I had no trouble surfing any site on the internet. I never got a sideways scroll.</p><p>I've found that for sites that won't display properly, if you go to them via m.google.com Google will reformat the screen so it's useable (or less unusable, depending on the site).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but for anything more complex you need a screen at least 1024 * 768Funny , back in the nineties my computer screen 's resolution was 640x480 and I had no trouble surfing any site on the internet .
I never got a sideways scroll.I 've found that for sites that wo n't display properly , if you go to them via m.google.com Google will reformat the screen so it 's useable ( or less unusable , depending on the site ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but for anything more complex you need a screen at least 1024*768Funny, back in the nineties my computer screen's resolution was 640x480 and I had no trouble surfing any site on the internet.
I never got a sideways scroll.I've found that for sites that won't display properly, if you go to them via m.google.com Google will reformat the screen so it's useable (or less unusable, depending on the site).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>dword</author>
	<datestamp>1255701840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure hope the Google Docs dev team doesn't find you. You're not impressed by my cool JavaScript and fancy effects that make my website more warm and fuzzy? Well, I'm not impressed by your crappy mobile that can't even display web pages properly. We're still hurting our backs trying to write JS and CSS compatible with IE6 and you're bitching that it doesn't work on your "mobile device". Well, guess what: my fancy website is cooler than your so-called fancy mobile so-called device. Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to make everything look and behave properly? And on top of all that shit, you also have to make it standards-compliant and on top of all that shit there are tons of other "rules" you have to follow to have usable code and on top of all that shit you have to write the code properly and on top of all that shit you have to have a life and take a break once in a while. Do you imagine how much a single "proper" web page would cost? Well guess what: If you don't like the fact that my business' website displays fine for 99\% of my visitors but doesn't display properly on Motorola X4358V HRH, take your money somewhere. And guess what: we're not pefect and we're still trying to create near-perfect web pages that work on horribly broken software.</p><p>In other words: it would be nice if the real world would be as you want it, your arrogant, hypocrite fuck.</p><p>With love,<br>Professional web developer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure hope the Google Docs dev team does n't find you .
You 're not impressed by my cool JavaScript and fancy effects that make my website more warm and fuzzy ?
Well , I 'm not impressed by your crappy mobile that ca n't even display web pages properly .
We 're still hurting our backs trying to write JS and CSS compatible with IE6 and you 're bitching that it does n't work on your " mobile device " .
Well , guess what : my fancy website is cooler than your so-called fancy mobile so-called device .
Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to make everything look and behave properly ?
And on top of all that shit , you also have to make it standards-compliant and on top of all that shit there are tons of other " rules " you have to follow to have usable code and on top of all that shit you have to write the code properly and on top of all that shit you have to have a life and take a break once in a while .
Do you imagine how much a single " proper " web page would cost ?
Well guess what : If you do n't like the fact that my business ' website displays fine for 99 \ % of my visitors but does n't display properly on Motorola X4358V HRH , take your money somewhere .
And guess what : we 're not pefect and we 're still trying to create near-perfect web pages that work on horribly broken software.In other words : it would be nice if the real world would be as you want it , your arrogant , hypocrite fuck.With love,Professional web developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure hope the Google Docs dev team doesn't find you.
You're not impressed by my cool JavaScript and fancy effects that make my website more warm and fuzzy?
Well, I'm not impressed by your crappy mobile that can't even display web pages properly.
We're still hurting our backs trying to write JS and CSS compatible with IE6 and you're bitching that it doesn't work on your "mobile device".
Well, guess what: my fancy website is cooler than your so-called fancy mobile so-called device.
Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to make everything look and behave properly?
And on top of all that shit, you also have to make it standards-compliant and on top of all that shit there are tons of other "rules" you have to follow to have usable code and on top of all that shit you have to write the code properly and on top of all that shit you have to have a life and take a break once in a while.
Do you imagine how much a single "proper" web page would cost?
Well guess what: If you don't like the fact that my business' website displays fine for 99\% of my visitors but doesn't display properly on Motorola X4358V HRH, take your money somewhere.
And guess what: we're not pefect and we're still trying to create near-perfect web pages that work on horribly broken software.In other words: it would be nice if the real world would be as you want it, your arrogant, hypocrite fuck.With love,Professional web developer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767511</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255700760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, ever try to render a web page on the blackberry browser?<br>Ever try to add a TABLE?  Or a 'br' line break?</p><p>How about when you have no choice but to deal with supporting older devices like WM5... and you have to replace all your PNGs with GIFs, and you can't use a background image with transparency...</p><p>CSS or no, older mobile browsers can be horrible at rendering basic HTML/CSS.  The BB Browser specifically goes out of it's way to remove spacing and compact the page into a vertical column.</p><p>So now you need to have three sites...<br>One for older mobile devices, one for newer mobile devices with a small screen and no support for auto-refresh, and one for the desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , ever try to render a web page on the blackberry browser ? Ever try to add a TABLE ?
Or a 'br ' line break ? How about when you have no choice but to deal with supporting older devices like WM5... and you have to replace all your PNGs with GIFs , and you ca n't use a background image with transparency...CSS or no , older mobile browsers can be horrible at rendering basic HTML/CSS .
The BB Browser specifically goes out of it 's way to remove spacing and compact the page into a vertical column.So now you need to have three sites...One for older mobile devices , one for newer mobile devices with a small screen and no support for auto-refresh , and one for the desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, ever try to render a web page on the blackberry browser?Ever try to add a TABLE?
Or a 'br' line break?How about when you have no choice but to deal with supporting older devices like WM5... and you have to replace all your PNGs with GIFs, and you can't use a background image with transparency...CSS or no, older mobile browsers can be horrible at rendering basic HTML/CSS.
The BB Browser specifically goes out of it's way to remove spacing and compact the page into a vertical column.So now you need to have three sites...One for older mobile devices, one for newer mobile devices with a small screen and no support for auto-refresh, and one for the desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767811</id>
	<title>Slashdot, meet the Internet</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1255703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot doesn't even support Unicode. It's kind of sad that what used to be the Internet's foremost tech site is now a decade behind even the simplest Tumblog with regard to basic Web features and functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot does n't even support Unicode .
It 's kind of sad that what used to be the Internet 's foremost tech site is now a decade behind even the simplest Tumblog with regard to basic Web features and functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot doesn't even support Unicode.
It's kind of sad that what used to be the Internet's foremost tech site is now a decade behind even the simplest Tumblog with regard to basic Web features and functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767961</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255704240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish it were that simple, but frankly it's not.  Not all of the mobile web browsers pass in the handheld media type.  So even if you go through the effort of figuring putting the proper CSS in place and create a good function design and implementation for handheld devices, you still need something to pick up on what browser, OS, or mix of both is running and conditionally include the CSS file you need.  Certainly, it can and has been done, but it's not as simple as creating a single CSS file reference for the standard media type you would expect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish it were that simple , but frankly it 's not .
Not all of the mobile web browsers pass in the handheld media type .
So even if you go through the effort of figuring putting the proper CSS in place and create a good function design and implementation for handheld devices , you still need something to pick up on what browser , OS , or mix of both is running and conditionally include the CSS file you need .
Certainly , it can and has been done , but it 's not as simple as creating a single CSS file reference for the standard media type you would expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish it were that simple, but frankly it's not.
Not all of the mobile web browsers pass in the handheld media type.
So even if you go through the effort of figuring putting the proper CSS in place and create a good function design and implementation for handheld devices, you still need something to pick up on what browser, OS, or mix of both is running and conditionally include the CSS file you need.
Certainly, it can and has been done, but it's not as simple as creating a single CSS file reference for the standard media type you would expect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768565</id>
	<title>Re:it's all about screen size</title>
	<author>Looke</author>
	<datestamp>1255707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Scrolling the text sideways"? It doesn't sound like you ever tried a decent mobile browser, like Opera Mini. It reflows text and resizes images to fit your little 3 inch window. For a whole lot of sites out there, neat and simple tricks like that work brilliantly.<br><br>As for the rise of web apps that the article brings up, that's where a mobile browser like Opera Mini falls short.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Scrolling the text sideways " ?
It does n't sound like you ever tried a decent mobile browser , like Opera Mini .
It reflows text and resizes images to fit your little 3 inch window .
For a whole lot of sites out there , neat and simple tricks like that work brilliantly.As for the rise of web apps that the article brings up , that 's where a mobile browser like Opera Mini falls short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Scrolling the text sideways"?
It doesn't sound like you ever tried a decent mobile browser, like Opera Mini.
It reflows text and resizes images to fit your little 3 inch window.
For a whole lot of sites out there, neat and simple tricks like that work brilliantly.As for the rise of web apps that the article brings up, that's where a mobile browser like Opera Mini falls short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767801</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255703100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are saying you should only code the hard way? Isn't the point of these tools even CSS is to make programming tasks easier?  I can see flash as it is not widely supported however most web enabled mobile devices that are worth developing for have Javascript, especially if they support CSS.  I actually push for heavy Javascript and less on Server side processing as for the most part the client even a smart phone has excess processing power and it can handle doing most of the legwork and just use the server to process data.  Actually this actually makes the pages run a lot faster even over dialup.  As well it keeps the server load low and less server side processing make it much easier to handle security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying you should only code the hard way ?
Is n't the point of these tools even CSS is to make programming tasks easier ?
I can see flash as it is not widely supported however most web enabled mobile devices that are worth developing for have Javascript , especially if they support CSS .
I actually push for heavy Javascript and less on Server side processing as for the most part the client even a smart phone has excess processing power and it can handle doing most of the legwork and just use the server to process data .
Actually this actually makes the pages run a lot faster even over dialup .
As well it keeps the server load low and less server side processing make it much easier to handle security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying you should only code the hard way?
Isn't the point of these tools even CSS is to make programming tasks easier?
I can see flash as it is not widely supported however most web enabled mobile devices that are worth developing for have Javascript, especially if they support CSS.
I actually push for heavy Javascript and less on Server side processing as for the most part the client even a smart phone has excess processing power and it can handle doing most of the legwork and just use the server to process data.
Actually this actually makes the pages run a lot faster even over dialup.
As well it keeps the server load low and less server side processing make it much easier to handle security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769599</id>
	<title>Re:Wish the iPhone didn't support Javascript so we</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255712700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Form often is more important than function, if it's a nice website that works great for 95\% of browsers, vs an ugly one that works for 97\%.  Let's face it, everyone uses javascript and almost everyone has flash.</p><p>If your browser doesn't render like IE, Safari or Firefox, you loose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Form often is more important than function , if it 's a nice website that works great for 95 \ % of browsers , vs an ugly one that works for 97 \ % .
Let 's face it , everyone uses javascript and almost everyone has flash.If your browser does n't render like IE , Safari or Firefox , you loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Form often is more important than function, if it's a nice website that works great for 95\% of browsers, vs an ugly one that works for 97\%.
Let's face it, everyone uses javascript and almost everyone has flash.If your browser doesn't render like IE, Safari or Firefox, you loose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768157</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255705440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is very funny is that you say all of this while your profile links to a site that isn't finished, doesn't work on my mobile phone, and is simply generated from a template by one of those tools you decry here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is very funny is that you say all of this while your profile links to a site that is n't finished , does n't work on my mobile phone , and is simply generated from a template by one of those tools you decry here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is very funny is that you say all of this while your profile links to a site that isn't finished, doesn't work on my mobile phone, and is simply generated from a template by one of those tools you decry here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</id>
	<title>I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255698840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use CSS as it was meant to be used, and stop using javascript and flash where they are unnecessary, and your sites will work just fine on mobile devices. Oh, that's hard? Sorry, your crap tools which produce shit code you don't understand don't impress me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use CSS as it was meant to be used , and stop using javascript and flash where they are unnecessary , and your sites will work just fine on mobile devices .
Oh , that 's hard ?
Sorry , your crap tools which produce shit code you do n't understand do n't impress me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use CSS as it was meant to be used, and stop using javascript and flash where they are unnecessary, and your sites will work just fine on mobile devices.
Oh, that's hard?
Sorry, your crap tools which produce shit code you don't understand don't impress me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770939</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1255719480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the problem that browsers are shit; that they were designed to display text and graphics and are ill-suited for what they're being used for?  Isn't what's actually required bits of code which describe what to do at a high level and it's up to some sort of browser replacement app, cranked for speed on whatever platform and designed to degrade gracefuly if your screen is small/black and white/narrow, or if you don't have 3d or a mouse or whatever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the problem that browsers are shit ; that they were designed to display text and graphics and are ill-suited for what they 're being used for ?
Is n't what 's actually required bits of code which describe what to do at a high level and it 's up to some sort of browser replacement app , cranked for speed on whatever platform and designed to degrade gracefuly if your screen is small/black and white/narrow , or if you do n't have 3d or a mouse or whatever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the problem that browsers are shit; that they were designed to display text and graphics and are ill-suited for what they're being used for?
Isn't what's actually required bits of code which describe what to do at a high level and it's up to some sort of browser replacement app, cranked for speed on whatever platform and designed to degrade gracefuly if your screen is small/black and white/narrow, or if you don't have 3d or a mouse or whatever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768091</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>implowry</author>
	<datestamp>1255705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, use HTML as a document markup language instead of an application platform. I thought for quite a while that forcing the square web application peg into the round document hole is a bad idea. We'd be better off if someone created an open web application standard that everyone would actually adopt. Perhaps something engineered with the capabilities that we want built in, instead of hacking (though some of the HTML/Javascript hacks are quite elegant) an application framework onto a document one.</p><p>Clearly there is a demand for this sort of thing hence Flash and Silverlight and Java applets before that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , use HTML as a document markup language instead of an application platform .
I thought for quite a while that forcing the square web application peg into the round document hole is a bad idea .
We 'd be better off if someone created an open web application standard that everyone would actually adopt .
Perhaps something engineered with the capabilities that we want built in , instead of hacking ( though some of the HTML/Javascript hacks are quite elegant ) an application framework onto a document one.Clearly there is a demand for this sort of thing hence Flash and Silverlight and Java applets before that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, use HTML as a document markup language instead of an application platform.
I thought for quite a while that forcing the square web application peg into the round document hole is a bad idea.
We'd be better off if someone created an open web application standard that everyone would actually adopt.
Perhaps something engineered with the capabilities that we want built in, instead of hacking (though some of the HTML/Javascript hacks are quite elegant) an application framework onto a document one.Clearly there is a demand for this sort of thing hence Flash and Silverlight and Java applets before that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1255700340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at all the <b>OpenSource</b> solutions to rapid web development.<ul>
<li>Concrete</li><li>Joomla</li><li>SilverStripe</li><li>Etc.</li></ul><p>

None of those programs even have a <i>core</i> that's close to being mobile enabled, and no one using them is going to create one. I think the largest problem is simply that the tools most people use for their websites are too bloated, complicated and poorly written to create an effective mobile web.<br> <br>

For example, I have a client that I just last week had to broach the subject of a mobile enabled version of their Joomla 1.5 site with. They were adamant that a version that cellphones could use was absolutely important, but because of the HUGE framework Joomla uses, and the relatively small number of functions a mobile version would need to perform, I basically opted to build a very tiny CMS that would mirror the data from the Joomla database.<br> <br>

You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly don't know what the hell they're doing, but you are only displaying your own ignorance. Clients drive website development, not developers, and for the vast majority of clients mobile web is something they just don't care about. And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web.<br> <br>

As a web developer, I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web, and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options: 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web <i>or</i> 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled.<br> <br>

I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at all the OpenSource solutions to rapid web development .
ConcreteJoomlaSilverStripeEtc . None of those programs even have a core that 's close to being mobile enabled , and no one using them is going to create one .
I think the largest problem is simply that the tools most people use for their websites are too bloated , complicated and poorly written to create an effective mobile web .
For example , I have a client that I just last week had to broach the subject of a mobile enabled version of their Joomla 1.5 site with .
They were adamant that a version that cellphones could use was absolutely important , but because of the HUGE framework Joomla uses , and the relatively small number of functions a mobile version would need to perform , I basically opted to build a very tiny CMS that would mirror the data from the Joomla database .
You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly do n't know what the hell they 're doing , but you are only displaying your own ignorance .
Clients drive website development , not developers , and for the vast majority of clients mobile web is something they just do n't care about .
And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web .
As a web developer , I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web , and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options : 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web or 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled .
I can tell you from years of experience , unless it 's part of their business model clients go for option 3 : fuck the mobile web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at all the OpenSource solutions to rapid web development.
ConcreteJoomlaSilverStripeEtc.

None of those programs even have a core that's close to being mobile enabled, and no one using them is going to create one.
I think the largest problem is simply that the tools most people use for their websites are too bloated, complicated and poorly written to create an effective mobile web.
For example, I have a client that I just last week had to broach the subject of a mobile enabled version of their Joomla 1.5 site with.
They were adamant that a version that cellphones could use was absolutely important, but because of the HUGE framework Joomla uses, and the relatively small number of functions a mobile version would need to perform, I basically opted to build a very tiny CMS that would mirror the data from the Joomla database.
You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly don't know what the hell they're doing, but you are only displaying your own ignorance.
Clients drive website development, not developers, and for the vast majority of clients mobile web is something they just don't care about.
And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web.
As a web developer, I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web, and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options: 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web or 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled.
I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</id>
	<title>Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1255700040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot is one of the worst for the mobile web.  When I try to read slashdot on my blackberry (peal 8120) not only does it not render, it crashes first the browser and ultimately the phone itself.  Just simply trying to load slashdot leaves me needing to pull the battery from my blackberry to execute a hard reboot.<br> <br>
Last time I asked, CmdrTaco's response was that slashdot is not concerned about development for mobile devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is one of the worst for the mobile web .
When I try to read slashdot on my blackberry ( peal 8120 ) not only does it not render , it crashes first the browser and ultimately the phone itself .
Just simply trying to load slashdot leaves me needing to pull the battery from my blackberry to execute a hard reboot .
Last time I asked , CmdrTaco 's response was that slashdot is not concerned about development for mobile devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is one of the worst for the mobile web.
When I try to read slashdot on my blackberry (peal 8120) not only does it not render, it crashes first the browser and ultimately the phone itself.
Just simply trying to load slashdot leaves me needing to pull the battery from my blackberry to execute a hard reboot.
Last time I asked, CmdrTaco's response was that slashdot is not concerned about development for mobile devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767449</id>
	<title>Re:Outdated?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255700160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is this really true anymore?</i></p><p>Yes. I have a Motorola i776, and with many sites it complains about not having enough memory. That includes slashdot. I won't work with wikipedia at all. The phone's browser controls are horrible too, for instance there's no slash and no back button. I only bough the thing (cost $100) a few months ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really true anymore ? Yes .
I have a Motorola i776 , and with many sites it complains about not having enough memory .
That includes slashdot .
I wo n't work with wikipedia at all .
The phone 's browser controls are horrible too , for instance there 's no slash and no back button .
I only bough the thing ( cost $ 100 ) a few months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really true anymore?Yes.
I have a Motorola i776, and with many sites it complains about not having enough memory.
That includes slashdot.
I won't work with wikipedia at all.
The phone's browser controls are horrible too, for instance there's no slash and no back button.
I only bough the thing (cost $100) a few months ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770671</id>
	<title>not so sad if you don't want a desktop experience</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1255718040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA misses the point, the mobile device is all about simplicity and fast, intuitive access.
<br>
Unless I missed the trend that everyone wants to see the same thing on their 3.1" screen like on their 21" LCD at home?
<br>
WAP was a great idea, poorly executed and the web grew so fast it couldn't scale. All mobile platforms face this challenge, cause just a simple translation of the desktop is just plain stupid. It's a problem we need. And in the end, it's not a sad situation as a finding a mobile solution will guarantee that the desktop experience will get better from it current state of Flash induced indigestion and inefficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA misses the point , the mobile device is all about simplicity and fast , intuitive access .
Unless I missed the trend that everyone wants to see the same thing on their 3.1 " screen like on their 21 " LCD at home ?
WAP was a great idea , poorly executed and the web grew so fast it could n't scale .
All mobile platforms face this challenge , cause just a simple translation of the desktop is just plain stupid .
It 's a problem we need .
And in the end , it 's not a sad situation as a finding a mobile solution will guarantee that the desktop experience will get better from it current state of Flash induced indigestion and inefficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA misses the point, the mobile device is all about simplicity and fast, intuitive access.
Unless I missed the trend that everyone wants to see the same thing on their 3.1" screen like on their 21" LCD at home?
WAP was a great idea, poorly executed and the web grew so fast it couldn't scale.
All mobile platforms face this challenge, cause just a simple translation of the desktop is just plain stupid.
It's a problem we need.
And in the end, it's not a sad situation as a finding a mobile solution will guarantee that the desktop experience will get better from it current state of Flash induced indigestion and inefficiency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768755</id>
	<title>Working with Concrete?</title>
	<author>Serious Callers Only</author>
	<datestamp>1255708440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web.</p></div><p>I don't know, some open source frameworks do have support for mobile websites built in - you can just customise a few layouts on Rails for example (as in 1 or 2 layouts), or just change the CSS if you like and you can add mobile support pretty easily. I've done it on a few sites and it wasn't difficult.</p><p>I understand some of the larger CMS frameworks will make this difficult, but then they make most stuff difficult if it wasn't originally considered when they wrote the framework - that's the compromise you make as you get a lot of stuff for free with them, but adapting them is more difficult and liable to break stuff. So it's a trade-off. That said it might be worth stepping outside your comfort zone and evaluating a few other tools as mobile websites start to be requested more and more. They're not going to go away, and you may find that clients start demanding sites that can be adapted for both. I think Drupal has decent support too.</p><p>So not all open source solutions ignore the mobile web completely or make it difficult - with some it's really quite simple. Avoid flash, make sure javascript degrades, and simplify layouts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web.I do n't know , some open source frameworks do have support for mobile websites built in - you can just customise a few layouts on Rails for example ( as in 1 or 2 layouts ) , or just change the CSS if you like and you can add mobile support pretty easily .
I 've done it on a few sites and it was n't difficult.I understand some of the larger CMS frameworks will make this difficult , but then they make most stuff difficult if it was n't originally considered when they wrote the framework - that 's the compromise you make as you get a lot of stuff for free with them , but adapting them is more difficult and liable to break stuff .
So it 's a trade-off .
That said it might be worth stepping outside your comfort zone and evaluating a few other tools as mobile websites start to be requested more and more .
They 're not going to go away , and you may find that clients start demanding sites that can be adapted for both .
I think Drupal has decent support too.So not all open source solutions ignore the mobile web completely or make it difficult - with some it 's really quite simple .
Avoid flash , make sure javascript degrades , and simplify layouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web.I don't know, some open source frameworks do have support for mobile websites built in - you can just customise a few layouts on Rails for example (as in 1 or 2 layouts), or just change the CSS if you like and you can add mobile support pretty easily.
I've done it on a few sites and it wasn't difficult.I understand some of the larger CMS frameworks will make this difficult, but then they make most stuff difficult if it wasn't originally considered when they wrote the framework - that's the compromise you make as you get a lot of stuff for free with them, but adapting them is more difficult and liable to break stuff.
So it's a trade-off.
That said it might be worth stepping outside your comfort zone and evaluating a few other tools as mobile websites start to be requested more and more.
They're not going to go away, and you may find that clients start demanding sites that can be adapted for both.
I think Drupal has decent support too.So not all open source solutions ignore the mobile web completely or make it difficult - with some it's really quite simple.
Avoid flash, make sure javascript degrades, and simplify layouts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767625</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1255701720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree completely. The sad state of the mobile web reflects the sad state of the web overall, and it stems from the design decision to focus on context, not visualization.  That is,HTML defines a context for a header, or table, or citation, but does not impose a rendering of those contexts.   This, of course, is not a good thing if one is developing an application front end, which is what MS and others were interested in doing.
<p>
CSS allowed control of the visualization, but by the time it came out there were all sorts of other hacks, which developers used even in cases where visualization was not important. This meant that a web page was often fixed on a certain platform, certain display size, and certain user assumptions.   This would not have been such a problem if the developers had just used HTML, and, where possible, lived with the fact that they were not going to be in control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
The sad state of the mobile web reflects the sad state of the web overall , and it stems from the design decision to focus on context , not visualization .
That is,HTML defines a context for a header , or table , or citation , but does not impose a rendering of those contexts .
This , of course , is not a good thing if one is developing an application front end , which is what MS and others were interested in doing .
CSS allowed control of the visualization , but by the time it came out there were all sorts of other hacks , which developers used even in cases where visualization was not important .
This meant that a web page was often fixed on a certain platform , certain display size , and certain user assumptions .
This would not have been such a problem if the developers had just used HTML , and , where possible , lived with the fact that they were not going to be in control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
The sad state of the mobile web reflects the sad state of the web overall, and it stems from the design decision to focus on context, not visualization.
That is,HTML defines a context for a header, or table, or citation, but does not impose a rendering of those contexts.
This, of course, is not a good thing if one is developing an application front end, which is what MS and others were interested in doing.
CSS allowed control of the visualization, but by the time it came out there were all sorts of other hacks, which developers used even in cases where visualization was not important.
This meant that a web page was often fixed on a certain platform, certain display size, and certain user assumptions.
This would not have been such a problem if the developers had just used HTML, and, where possible, lived with the fact that they were not going to be in control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29774863</id>
	<title>Re:I have a better idea</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1255702200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As a web developer, I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web, and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options: 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web <em>or</em> 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled.<br>
    <br>
    I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>There's also option 4: fuck you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a web developer , I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web , and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options : 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web or 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled .
I can tell you from years of experience , unless it 's part of their business model clients go for option 3 : fuck the mobile web .
There 's also option 4 : fuck you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a web developer, I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web, and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options: 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web or 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled.
I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.
There's also option 4: fuck you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770451</id>
	<title>This is true, just look at slashdot.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255716960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a blackberry storm, and the mobile web world is pretty bad on it.</p><p>If you try to view slashdot.org, all the scripts load and slow things down to a major crawl on the device. Half the websites won't work with it's browser, unless you tell it to say it's Firefox or IE instead of Blackberry.</p><p>If you go to the WAP version of slashdot.org, it's not even remotely the same. 5 stories linked to via a list. Very plain, and looking like it's ment for a mobile phone without any real capabilities.</p><p>The issue is, most sites that allow you to view the "full version" are sending you the FULL version of the site. Javascript and all, which is fine when the device can do it (such as the Storm), but with the low CPU power and memory, things become slow and unusable in no time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a blackberry storm , and the mobile web world is pretty bad on it.If you try to view slashdot.org , all the scripts load and slow things down to a major crawl on the device .
Half the websites wo n't work with it 's browser , unless you tell it to say it 's Firefox or IE instead of Blackberry.If you go to the WAP version of slashdot.org , it 's not even remotely the same .
5 stories linked to via a list .
Very plain , and looking like it 's ment for a mobile phone without any real capabilities.The issue is , most sites that allow you to view the " full version " are sending you the FULL version of the site .
Javascript and all , which is fine when the device can do it ( such as the Storm ) , but with the low CPU power and memory , things become slow and unusable in no time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a blackberry storm, and the mobile web world is pretty bad on it.If you try to view slashdot.org, all the scripts load and slow things down to a major crawl on the device.
Half the websites won't work with it's browser, unless you tell it to say it's Firefox or IE instead of Blackberry.If you go to the WAP version of slashdot.org, it's not even remotely the same.
5 stories linked to via a list.
Very plain, and looking like it's ment for a mobile phone without any real capabilities.The issue is, most sites that allow you to view the "full version" are sending you the FULL version of the site.
Javascript and all, which is fine when the device can do it (such as the Storm), but with the low CPU power and memory, things become slow and unusable in no time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770529</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1255717380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Slashdot is one of the worst for the mobile web. When I try to read slashdot on my blackberry (peal 8120) not only does it not render, it crashes first the browser and ultimately the phone itself. Just simply trying to load slashdot leaves me needing to pull the battery from my blackberry to execute a hard reboot.</p></div></blockquote><p>I had this problem with Slashdot over 5 years ago and wrote <a href="http://www.fourteenminutes.com/code/avantslash/" title="fourteenminutes.com">AvantSlash</a> [fourteenminutes.com] which turns the pages into something which is <a href="http://www.fourteenminutes.com/code/avantslash/photo2.jpg" title="fourteenminutes.com">readable</a> [fourteenminutes.com] on just about any mobile device. Please try it if you can.</p><p>It kind of saddens me that there are over 50 comments on this article about how poor Slashdot is and yet not one person has mentioned this project. Just goes to show the power of marketing I suppose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is one of the worst for the mobile web .
When I try to read slashdot on my blackberry ( peal 8120 ) not only does it not render , it crashes first the browser and ultimately the phone itself .
Just simply trying to load slashdot leaves me needing to pull the battery from my blackberry to execute a hard reboot.I had this problem with Slashdot over 5 years ago and wrote AvantSlash [ fourteenminutes.com ] which turns the pages into something which is readable [ fourteenminutes.com ] on just about any mobile device .
Please try it if you can.It kind of saddens me that there are over 50 comments on this article about how poor Slashdot is and yet not one person has mentioned this project .
Just goes to show the power of marketing I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is one of the worst for the mobile web.
When I try to read slashdot on my blackberry (peal 8120) not only does it not render, it crashes first the browser and ultimately the phone itself.
Just simply trying to load slashdot leaves me needing to pull the battery from my blackberry to execute a hard reboot.I had this problem with Slashdot over 5 years ago and wrote AvantSlash [fourteenminutes.com] which turns the pages into something which is readable [fourteenminutes.com] on just about any mobile device.
Please try it if you can.It kind of saddens me that there are over 50 comments on this article about how poor Slashdot is and yet not one person has mentioned this project.
Just goes to show the power of marketing I suppose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775607</id>
	<title>No, The wap wasn't the same as your iphone</title>
	<author>Mr\_Mirsal</author>
	<datestamp>1255713780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try surfing the web using an android / maemo / moblin device, or an iphone and you'll see that the mobile web is in pretty good shape actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try surfing the web using an android / maemo / moblin device , or an iphone and you 'll see that the mobile web is in pretty good shape actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try surfing the web using an android / maemo / moblin device, or an iphone and you'll see that the mobile web is in pretty good shape actually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769743</id>
	<title>Not so bad</title>
	<author>dn15</author>
	<datestamp>1255713420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know mobile browsing has traditionally been a pain, but outside of work I actually do more browsing and emailing from my iPhone than from my personal computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know mobile browsing has traditionally been a pain , but outside of work I actually do more browsing and emailing from my iPhone than from my personal computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know mobile browsing has traditionally been a pain, but outside of work I actually do more browsing and emailing from my iPhone than from my personal computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770107</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>gorgano</author>
	<datestamp>1255715220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to read the posted comments, but the stories themselves are pretty easy to read if you just grab the RSS feed.  A lot of websites -- or at least news websites -- provide RSS feeds which can be used as a 'lite' version of the site quite easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to read the posted comments , but the stories themselves are pretty easy to read if you just grab the RSS feed .
A lot of websites -- or at least news websites -- provide RSS feeds which can be used as a 'lite ' version of the site quite easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to read the posted comments, but the stories themselves are pretty easy to read if you just grab the RSS feed.
A lot of websites -- or at least news websites -- provide RSS feeds which can be used as a 'lite' version of the site quite easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768549</id>
	<title>Re:Pot, meet kettle</title>
	<author>xie.chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1255707600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For iPhone, please try this:
<a href="http://tiger.dbs.nus.edu.sg/~xiechao/i/slashdot.pl" title="nus.edu.sg" rel="nofollow">http://tiger.dbs.nus.edu.sg/~xiechao/i/slashdot.pl</a> [nus.edu.sg]

read only though</htmltext>
<tokenext>For iPhone , please try this : http : //tiger.dbs.nus.edu.sg/ ~ xiechao/i/slashdot.pl [ nus.edu.sg ] read only though</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For iPhone, please try this:
http://tiger.dbs.nus.edu.sg/~xiechao/i/slashdot.pl [nus.edu.sg]

read only though</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485</id>
	<title>Wish the iPhone didn't support Javascript so well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255700520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything that puts the brakes on flash only websites is a good thing in my opinion. I just wish that there were more users of phones that supported HTML really well but didn't do Javascript so that there would be more pressure on web developers to make their pages accessible.</p><p>It seems to be an overwhelming human tendency to put form above function and the only thing preventing web developers from tying everything up in an impenetrable Gordian knot is the ever smaller number of old computers and phones that they might grudgingly spare an occasional though on.</p><p>Personally I wish browser plugins had never been invented. I've got a video player, a PDF reader, and all sorts of other applications and my browser knows how to launch them just fine. It annoys me every time some "clever" web developer finds some new way to force my computer to open a PDF inside my browser with restricted controls instead of dispatching it to my PDF reader with full functionality.</p><p>When phones catch up fully with modern desktops it may well signal the end of the open, accessible, web. The "professionals" would sure like to make the web just another version of TV where they control everything and our only choice is to use it their way or turn off the set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that puts the brakes on flash only websites is a good thing in my opinion .
I just wish that there were more users of phones that supported HTML really well but did n't do Javascript so that there would be more pressure on web developers to make their pages accessible.It seems to be an overwhelming human tendency to put form above function and the only thing preventing web developers from tying everything up in an impenetrable Gordian knot is the ever smaller number of old computers and phones that they might grudgingly spare an occasional though on.Personally I wish browser plugins had never been invented .
I 've got a video player , a PDF reader , and all sorts of other applications and my browser knows how to launch them just fine .
It annoys me every time some " clever " web developer finds some new way to force my computer to open a PDF inside my browser with restricted controls instead of dispatching it to my PDF reader with full functionality.When phones catch up fully with modern desktops it may well signal the end of the open , accessible , web .
The " professionals " would sure like to make the web just another version of TV where they control everything and our only choice is to use it their way or turn off the set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that puts the brakes on flash only websites is a good thing in my opinion.
I just wish that there were more users of phones that supported HTML really well but didn't do Javascript so that there would be more pressure on web developers to make their pages accessible.It seems to be an overwhelming human tendency to put form above function and the only thing preventing web developers from tying everything up in an impenetrable Gordian knot is the ever smaller number of old computers and phones that they might grudgingly spare an occasional though on.Personally I wish browser plugins had never been invented.
I've got a video player, a PDF reader, and all sorts of other applications and my browser knows how to launch them just fine.
It annoys me every time some "clever" web developer finds some new way to force my computer to open a PDF inside my browser with restricted controls instead of dispatching it to my PDF reader with full functionality.When phones catch up fully with modern desktops it may well signal the end of the open, accessible, web.
The "professionals" would sure like to make the web just another version of TV where they control everything and our only choice is to use it their way or turn off the set.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769929</id>
	<title>Re:is this why /. is the sucks to read on my iphon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. sucks because slashcode is a festering pile of shit that (somewhat ironically, for a supposed geek site) gets WORSE and more bloated with every single release. I have trouble browsing it with desktop browsers sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , / .
sucks because slashcode is a festering pile of shit that ( somewhat ironically , for a supposed geek site ) gets WORSE and more bloated with every single release .
I have trouble browsing it with desktop browsers sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, /.
sucks because slashcode is a festering pile of shit that (somewhat ironically, for a supposed geek site) gets WORSE and more bloated with every single release.
I have trouble browsing it with desktop browsers sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770815</id>
	<title>Design like it's 1999....</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255718700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, that's what we did when creating our mobile ordering platform.  Everything is in HTML with vanilla javascript for things like form validation.  Then we created a mobile style sheet without graphics, other than a thumbnail of the logo, and it works on every mobile browser we've tried.  iPhone, Blackberrys, Samsungs, Windows Mobile, Pre, various LG phones we've tried.  Everything.  Even over GPRS/Edge the pages load snappy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , that 's what we did when creating our mobile ordering platform .
Everything is in HTML with vanilla javascript for things like form validation .
Then we created a mobile style sheet without graphics , other than a thumbnail of the logo , and it works on every mobile browser we 've tried .
iPhone , Blackberrys , Samsungs , Windows Mobile , Pre , various LG phones we 've tried .
Everything. Even over GPRS/Edge the pages load snappy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, that's what we did when creating our mobile ordering platform.
Everything is in HTML with vanilla javascript for things like form validation.
Then we created a mobile style sheet without graphics, other than a thumbnail of the logo, and it works on every mobile browser we've tried.
iPhone, Blackberrys, Samsungs, Windows Mobile, Pre, various LG phones we've tried.
Everything.  Even over GPRS/Edge the pages load snappy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29774901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29793133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29773849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29774863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0611249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29773849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29793133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29772805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29774901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767813
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770939
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29774863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768695
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770203
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29770107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29771095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0611249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29769599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29768835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29775051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0611249.29767927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
