2000-12-04 22:30:08+00 by TC 2 comments
Ok I know it isn't the tightest spec and it seems a bit wordy but what is so wrong with WAP" ?? Yes you can go cross-eyed from reading the specs and they seem to have developed a committee that is more officious than the DMV... but is there anything wrong with the technology???
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment made: 2002-02-21 05:30:40+00 by: baylink
WAP Sucks. Does this answer your questions? :-) Any time someone offers you a protocol stack to do *something that someone's already done*, question their motives *very carefully*. And remember; the wireless internet won't be Neopoints, forever...
#Comment made: 2002-02-21 05:30:41+00 by: Dan Lyke
Well, I sure won't be buying any stock in Phone.com in the near future. I've got the same question I always have in these situations: What's the matter with HTML 1.0 and HTTP 1.0? Especially since several people have got TCP/IP and HTTP servers running on microcontrollers whose memory is measured in fractions of K bytes. Generally when I see new standards and specs for systems that already exists it means that the implementors of the new standards are either too stupid to understand the implementation issues that lead to the old ones, or that they're maliciously trying to keep other players out of the game. In the case of Microsoft I'm still not sure which it is...