Talk:Wireless Markup Language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wireless Markup Language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Last couple of paragraphs not Neutral?[edit]

The last couple of paragraphs don't seem very neutral, in that they pose a point of view, make no citations, and try to tell the reader what to think. Any useful info should be retrieved and the paragraphs removed. Who agrees with this?

121.90.178.161 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC) ipsi[reply]

If you mean this paragraph:

The approach and efforts of the telecommunication giants to limit the free and universal access to WML enabled URLs is very offensive to the neutrality and openness of the Internet. It is the same as limiting your access to the web from your ordinary browser by only letting you select domains from among a short list of "pre-approved" list of "sponsored" URL bookmarks specified by your Internet provider, or only letting you use your cell phone to call "pre-selected" vendors who have paid a sponsorship fee.

Then you're absolutely right. I'm marking this NPOV if no one objects. --199.107.196.185 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I object to the POV flag. I don't see that the paragraph is not neutral.

RE: "poses a point of view" -- the paragraph provides an example. An example is not a point of view.

RE: "makes no citations" -- you are taking the paragraph out of context. The next paragraph cites the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order issued on July 31, 2007.

RE: "tries to tell the reader what to think" -- again, an example is no different from an illustration. An illustration not an attempt to tell the reader what to think.

Can you name a wireless telecommunications company that allows free and unfettered access to a website presented in WML, on the same free and unfettered basis you are able to access this Wikipedia website?

I'll bet you're free to access or ignore wikipedia.org from your browser. It's your decision. Are you free to access or ignore wikipedia.org in WML format on your cellphone based on your own decision?

I doubt it. Can you show otherwise? Present your facts!

The lack of access neutrality to WML-formatted internet content is a fact.

Because you don't like a fact doesn't mean its POV is not neutral. A fact by definition does not have a point of view.

Maybe you're irked by the "is very offensive" phrasing. What I can suggest to resolve this POV flag is to change the phrasing to read "is in contrast to."
---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.122.107 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 December 2007

This article needs complete re-write[edit]

This article is a complete mess -- and fails to discuss WML 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.151.211 (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-The structure of the article is now greatly improved, and WML 2.0 is mentioned. I´ve taken the liberty to remove the cleanup tag. ----Guppie

Relevance of criticism[edit]

To me, the criticism section looks more like a criticism of WAP than a criticism of WML. Does it really belong in this article? Rainault (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Moved to WAP: Commercial status, USA, since that´s what the text really concerned. Feel free to add some to-the-point technical criticism of WML, as that´s lacking. :-) Guppie (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's it do ?[edit]

I've shuffled stuff about in order to have a somewhat decent intro, where i found further down that "it is a lot like HTML in that it provides...", so now i'm wondering what the diff with HTML is, that is, why some pple bothered to write an HTML clone. Anyone are to specify ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading phrasing[edit]

This phrase found in the first paragraph needs to be qualified, "It preceded the use of other markup languages". I think it is meant to say 'it preceded in some mobile devices'. Instead it gives the impression of predating other markup languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.153.134 (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in graphic[edit]

The graphic claims "Time" Berners-Lee as the author of the HTML specification. Should be "Tim" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee Xobes (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]