W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Comments on Content Transformation Guidelines?

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:11:32 +0200
Message-ID: <48980B34.5030306@eunet.no>
To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Sean Owen wrote:
> While Aaron and I know that the overwhelming majority of sites don't
> mind, even like the transcoder, I understand that you are more
> narrowly talking about certain cases where users are forced to use a
> transcoder. (So, I guess there are "good" and "bad" transcoders? hmm,
> maybe someone should write a document about what makes one "good"...
> perhaps Guidelines of some kind...)
>   
the more I am involved with trascoders and their abusive practices, the 
more I think that the only good transcoder is a dead transcoder.
> I have good news, and that's the free market. If this is such a
> terrible experience, users will flee. And, well, they are. To more
> capable phones, to carriers with less restrictive controls over the
> browsing experience. I think you are being vindicated at that level.
>   
the problem is that mobile developers (often tiny company who try to 
survive by selling games and ringtones) get screwed in the process. Not 
very fair for those who bet their job and their future on the promise of 
a neutral net which would give them equal opportunity. I find it sort of 
disgusting that operators (with millions and millions of dollars in 
revenue) install transcoders to get hold of the crumbles which would 
feed the long tail of smaller companies.

>
>   
>> Now, having said this, I think a compromise may be found over opt-in
>> services (opera-mini, skweezer, google). But placing a transcoder in the
>> middle of each HTTP connection is not acceptable. Transcoding HTTPS is more
>> than not acceptable. It is unconceivable.
>>     
>
> Google is not opt-in -- and we are by definition not evil!
>   
Is this a joke? Google is a corporation which is in for the money just 
like everyone else.

> I don't think opt-in is crazy. I do think it's impractical. You are
> then placing quite a burden on site owners to opt in to every little
> transcoder out there (assuming you want transcoding of course).
>   
so, you are suggesting that every mobile and web site should opt-out of 
each and every operator trascoder out there, instead?
> Anecdotally, just about every site on the planet wants the transcoder.
> People do ask us to not transcode; virtually everyone else doesn't.
> Based on that, opt-out seems more sensible. But opt-in is not crazy.
>
> What do you think of letting *users* opt in/out too? as a content
> provider I want what the user deems best. I'd let them choose rather
> than choose for them (but I don't want to tell content providers they
> can't choose -- I fully support the CTG defining ways to force no
> transcoding). We do that (you can turn off transcoded links). I think
> we wholeheartedly all agree that nobody should be forced through a
> transcoder if not desired. The CTG agrees.
>   
the CTG agrees, but it won't agree to spell out clearly "DO NOT CHANGE 
THE USER-AGENT".
Well, you know what, if you change the user agent, mobile sites do not 
get a chance to even understand that it is a mobile phone they are 
talking to.

> We agree about HTTPS, if the user isn't aware of what's going on. I'm
> asking you what you think happens when the user does know what's going
> on. I don't agree the user should be forced to *not* transcode for the
> same reason I agree the user should not be forced to transcode.
>   
I don't think we agree about HTTPS. We probably agree about the 
understanding of the problem.
If you now think HTTPS = DO NOT TRANSCODE, then we agree.

Luca
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 08:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC