From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald(_at_)Alvestrand(_dot_)no>
that even if there was enough bandwidth, small screen's on some of the
today's devices can't meaningfully display all contents of modern web
Neither can Lynx, a popular text-mode browser.
The fact is that the Internet was developed *in* and *for* the bandwidth
and display capabilities that WAP currently is claiming to be designed for.
It just scaled well.
That bears repeating, although few of the WAP enthusiasts and other
advocates of fix TCP for QOS and modern radio telephone links will hear.
Some of us remember that TCP was commonly and productively used over links
that were slower than the WAP targets and with loss rates almost as bad.
Do you remember SLIP and later PPP over 1200 to 9600 bit/sec non-error
correcting or even error-detecting telephone modems? There were also the
activities that made KA9Q famous involving radio links much slower and
with worse losses than WAP enthusiasts fear. I don't suppose they know
or care about the connection between KA9Q and the Phil Karn who recently
wrote here about WAP.
The notion of an automagic converter to 60x80 resolution for almost
any of web pages I see daily says all that needs to be said about WAP
outside the corridors of the telephants, and since the telphants are
saying it, the rest of us needn't belabor it. To be convinced, read
the non-technical press, such as that gushy, non-technical technophile's
weekly column in Thursday's "Wall Street Journal." (oops--I see
today's column was written by a stand-in...nevertheless)
Still, all of this talk about WAP is irrelevant on the main IETF list.
The IETF is to WAP as the ISO or ITU is to TCP, or if you prefer, as
the IETF was to TP4. Only moribund standards organizations have the
time and energy to spare for critiques of the fun and games in other
standards outfits and industry consortia. WAP will fail on its own
merits and without the let, leave, or hindrance of the IETF.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
P.S. who coined "telephant"?