Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:53:28 -0800
> >On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> >> S-XSLT should be written anyway. XT will hardly fit into
> >> cell phone ;-)
> It would be interesting to know how much code can be fitted into a
> cell-phone. Does anyone actually know?
It depends. I suggest not to get concentrated on the particular
"cell-phone", but to think about 'some device with low memory'.
Before we got PC - many things ( like compilers, OS e t.c)
were already in place on big computers. Then PC appears -
and we need to calculate memory and use assembly again.
OK, we have PC. Everything is fine, memory is cheap after
a years of progress we have UNIX running on PC. Then we got,
for example, VeriPhone POS ( to process credit cards ) - and
we are again in the world of low-level programming with limited
resources e t.c.
I think this is endless process, because it was endless before.
Maybe something very important happened and now there is some
way to be more happy about the future? I don't think so.
> It seems that a cell phone can fit at least a WAP system including a
> little ECMAScript interpreter and networking. There are WAPphones
> on sale in HongKong, so they can fit the glyphs for
> 3,000-7000 characters too, though perhaps some smarts are used
> to squeeze them in by components.
But there will always be some device with limited resources.
I don't know why it always happens that programms need
more resources than hardware could give and I don't
understand why it should change. I don't know why
Java VM is not already embedded into every device.
Maybe hardware vendors have some reason for it ?
Not talking about the history of Next computer ... wasn't it
perfect? ... but too expensive .... I think the same is with any
hardware, including cell-phone. So there will be for sure
some cell-phones not running ECMAScript interpreter.
The question is what framework would fit better into
'cell-phone' - XML-based or SML-based.
I think that because people from that hardware world
are already implementing the subsets of XML - it
should be taken into account.
Actualy, getting SML in place may help *XML* to get
better market share. SML could be kind of
XML for very-very-very thin clients ;-)
Alfred parser showed that XML parser could be small.
Unfortunately, *only* the parser may be not enough.
I want XT to run everywhere ;-)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)