<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: View your site with Nokia Open Source web browser today</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.eriksmartt.com/blog/archives/240/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.eriksmartt.com/blog/archives/240</link>
	<description>my little chunk of bandwidth</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:52:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4-alpha-19814</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: erik</title>
		<link>http://www.eriksmartt.com/blog/archives/240#comment-444</link>
		<dc:creator>erik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:08:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eriksmartt.com/blog/archives/240#comment-444</guid>
		<description>Yeah, two different approaches.  Opera adapts the page to fit on a small screen. The Nokia browser squeezes where possible, but obeys coded widths and positioning, making it conform as best as possible to the intended page design.  I like both approaches depending on the need.  The Opera approach works really well for sites that have put some thought into page-flow for small screens.  The Nokia approach works better for capturing the desktop experience with sites that don&#039;t render well when the browser chooses to layout the screen in a manner other then how the designer specified.  And as site interactions become more rich (ex., touch screens and AJAX), the need to render as declared in the HTML becomes somewhat more critical for the customer experience.

The lines begin to blur when you use larger screen though.  On the Nokia 770, for example, even sites such as Google Mail work perfectly with Opera.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, two different approaches.  Opera adapts the page to fit on a small screen. The Nokia browser squeezes where possible, but obeys coded widths and positioning, making it conform as best as possible to the intended page design.  I like both approaches depending on the need.  The Opera approach works really well for sites that have put some thought into page-flow for small screens.  The Nokia approach works better for capturing the desktop experience with sites that don&#8217;t render well when the browser chooses to layout the screen in a manner other then how the designer specified.  And as site interactions become more rich (ex., touch screens and AJAX), the need to render as declared in the HTML becomes somewhat more critical for the customer experience.</p>
<p>The lines begin to blur when you use larger screen though.  On the Nokia 770, for example, even sites such as Google Mail work perfectly with Opera.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Artem</title>
		<link>http://www.eriksmartt.com/blog/archives/240#comment-389</link>
		<dc:creator>Artem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eriksmartt.com/blog/archives/240#comment-389</guid>
		<description>Errgh, I hate the horizontal scrolling. Whatever good the rendering is, while there is Opera with its &quot;small screen rendering&quot; Nokia browser is out of competition... Well, it would be out of competition if there was a competition :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Errgh, I hate the horizontal scrolling. Whatever good the rendering is, while there is Opera with its &#8220;small screen rendering&#8221; Nokia browser is out of competition&#8230; Well, it would be out of competition if there was a competition :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

