Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:37:04 +0100
Subject: [gopher] Re: PyGopherd 2.0 released; Gopher and WAP
Message-ID: <317e848112f34d7f185bcf056962c88d@Bouncing>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Generated by Pantomime 1.1.0)
From: MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
To: gopher@complete.org
Organization: My own
In-Reply-To: <oprumci2e1oh6hmd@localhost>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

On 2003-08-28 15:14:52 +0100 PapaLazarus <papalazarus@f2s.com> wrote:
> A pictures worth a thousand words, well maps & diagrams.

I agree entirely, but nothing prevents a mobile gopher client 
displaying (or more likely storing for later display, in my case) 
images.  I expect such images would be more relevant to the task than 
95% of web images.  It also helps navigation speed to have a 
consistent user interface, such as gopher menus, and not to have to 
process dense markup.  I think gopher probably will come out ahead on 
access speed for most tasks usually done on mobiles, from combining 
lots of reasons.  As has been said, there's quite a few similar 
solutions in WAP interfaces as gopher ones.

-- 
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.