Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 12th Aug 2006 07:13 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Between the full desktop version, the subscriber's ad-free version, the normal mobile version (via autodetection), the very lite mobile version and the WAP version of OSNews, here is one more: http://osnews.com/pda . This version is built around our RSS feed and it's geared towards cellphones (like the Motorola RaZR line) that can't quite manage to render our normal mobile front page (28 KB overall) while the very lite or WAP versions don't have enough information in them so they leave our readers with a bitter taste. Hence, we implemented this RSS-based middle-ground mobile version, like we also did for other popular sites yesterday (screenshots). The PHP source code that generates this mobile-friendly layout is freely available and ready to be deployed, courtecy of MoBits.com.
Order by: Score:
What About the Comments?
by Dolphin on Sat 12th Aug 2006 07:46 UTC
Dolphin
Member since:
2006-05-01

I like it ;)

But the comments.... they still appear old-school
Maybe a PDA version of those too? After all, the news we can find anywhere, but the awesome community is what makes OSNews what it is =D

Reply Score: 5

RE: What About the Comments?
by Eugenia on Sat 12th Aug 2006 07:50 UTC in reply to "What About the Comments?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Well, this new version is based on a static RSS file, so no equivelant comments page can be created. However, when you are actually visiting the site with a PDA or cellphone or other gadget, you are going to get the normal mobile version automatically, including the mobile version of the comments. So there is always a way to get a mobile version of the comments, even if this new RSS version doesn't link to one specifically.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What About the Comments?
by Dolphin on Sat 12th Aug 2006 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: What About the Comments?"
Dolphin Member since:
2006-05-01

Thanks Eugenia

Reply Score: 1

hmm..
by gothic on Sat 12th Aug 2006 09:04 UTC
gothic
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why use $handle = fopen("$url", "rb"); instead of $handle = fopen($url, "rb");

The $url doesn't need "".

Reply Score: 2

RE: hmm..
by Dolphin on Sat 12th Aug 2006 09:59 UTC in reply to "hmm.."
Dolphin Member since:
2006-05-01

Does it matter? It works.... PHP understands that $something is a variable almost anywhere you put it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hmm..
by gothic on Sat 12th Aug 2006 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
gothic Member since:
2005-07-06

I know PHP and ofcourse that =) She knows what indentation is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style)? checking source, I don't think so.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hmm..
by Eugenia on Sat 12th Aug 2006 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I never use indentation, neither I comment my code. It's just my style, although I recognize how usable they can make code. I never meant to release that code anyway. It just occured to me last night that some people might find it useful.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by butters on Sat 12th Aug 2006 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Right on. Intentation and comments do not good code make. They are especially useful for open source, but this code is simple enough that anyone should understand it, especially if they have a good editor with syntax highlighting.

You should probably license this somehow, especially as you seem to want to preserve the MoBits attribution. The code comment saying you shouldn't change the MoBits URL won't hold up in court... MIT, BSD, or Apache (v1.1) licenses would be appropriate, in order of increasing attribution protection. If for no other reason, you probably want the "AS IS" disclaimer to protect you from frivolous lawsuits, should this code become widely used.

Reply Score: 1

RaZR phones blow!
by sc3252 on Sat 12th Aug 2006 09:19 UTC
sc3252
Member since:
2005-09-06

I have one, so I should know.

Reply Score: 3

Cool Eugenia
by poohgee on Sat 12th Aug 2006 14:29 UTC
poohgee
Member since:
2005-08-13

I have no mobile bits but cool - A big THX from the OSn & Digg communities I guess - ;)

Reply Score: 1

Nothing against this initiative but...
by Joe User on Sat 12th Aug 2006 17:21 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

I can't read on a screen that small: http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2006/08/11/tuxtops-mobile/

Text is too small, almost unreadable. I prefer to wait to be at home with my comfortable large screen.

Nothing against people who use PDAs though.

Reply Score: 2

ad-free?
by bubbayank on Sat 12th Aug 2006 17:29 UTC
bubbayank
Member since:
2005-07-15

I'm not a "subscriber", but I still get an ad-free version. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: ad-free?
by Eugenia on Sat 12th Aug 2006 17:44 UTC in reply to "ad-free?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

You mean, you get this? http://www.osnews.com/demo.html
This version is not only truly ad-free, but it loads much faster because there are no nested tables in it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ad-free?
by Joe User on Sat 12th Aug 2006 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: ad-free?"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

OMG if you have a look at the source code of this page, it's a real soup. It embedds all redundant CSS code inside the page and uses tables. You should optimize your CSS code a lot more than that, and put it on a separate style sheet. You shouldn't use any table at all also. There is a whole bunch of unneeded code. You would save on bandwidth.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ad-free?
by Eugenia on Sat 12th Aug 2006 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ad-free?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Haha, you are funny. You think that things are the way they are because we are lazy, or because we strive to be COMPATIBLE? Make a guess.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ad-free?
by Joe User on Sun 13th Aug 2006 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ad-free?"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not necessarily because you are lazy. But I swear that you can make code that is compatible with any browser on any platform, including PDAs, using pure XHTML, CSS and tableless coding.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ad-free?
by Eugenia on Sun 13th Aug 2006 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ad-free?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Joe User, you are VERY, VERY wrong! I am doing mobile developement for 3 years now and I have access to most of these browsers. I know them in and out. XHTML/CSS does NOT work on the VAST majority of these mobile browsers. They CLAIM that they do support XHTML, but especially their CSS support is a pipe dream.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ad-free?
by Joe User on Sun 13th Aug 2006 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ad-free?"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

To tell you the truth, I know this works on the HP PDA that I have, and also on major browsers (IE 5.5, IE6, Opera, Opera Mini, Firefox, Konqueror). These are the ones I test. I am able to use just one style sheet. Now, maybe there are certain PDAs that don't respect web standards, I don't know all of them. Sorry then. But still, the style sheet may probably be included in an external file, this should work on all PDAs I guess.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: ad-free?
by Eugenia on Mon 14th Aug 2006 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ad-free?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

There is no reason for yet another HTTP request to make things slower (especially on GPRS). The CSS I am using for mobile versions is only a few lines, usually 10 or 12 lines. It is more compatible and faster to have these few lines inline.

Also, you are only tested your mobile stylesheet with only two browsers from what I see. I usually test with 10 on about 15 devices and emulators. And from these 10, only 3-4 of them support CSS at all (IE, Netfront, Opera and Openwave), while only 1 of these 4 has actual *good* support for CSS (Opera).

Reply Score: 1

Excellent!
by PJBonoVox on Mon 14th Aug 2006 16:12 UTC
PJBonoVox
Member since:
2006-08-14

Nice work OS News. It already looked great on my PDA but now it's even more readable.

...and also I see the Digg project on Eugenia's blog too. Excellent ;)

*rubs hands*

Reply Score: 1