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

Re: transcoders bad

From: Terren Suydam <terren@singleclicksystems.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:44:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4898ADA2.7050608@singleclicksystems.com>
To: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
CC: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>, public-bpwg-comments@w3.org



Sean Owen wrote:
> If you are doing content negotiation, you need to look for the
> presence of one new header in the case that you are talking to a
> transcoder, to both ensure you send no-transform and render for the
> target device. This seems like two lines of code -- if you're not
> already looking for this semi-standard header.

It must seem simple to you because you are not affected by it. But 
asking the entire industry to change the way it does something involves 
real resources... an argument you're apparently not taking seriously 
because you don't have to bear the cost. And when it comes to bearing 
the cost, transcoders don't have much experience in that at all, do 
they? Transcoder makes a mistake, who gets the support call?  Transcoder 
inserts confusing links, who loses the business?  So resource management 
isn't your forte, I understand, but at some point you have to be 
accountable for your presence in the ecosystem.

> You are angry because you have interests and your interests have
> clashed with those of transcoders. I am sure that is valid. This
> document does not only represent content developer interests, but the
> interests of end users. I don't think it's appropriate for a W3C
> recommendation to represent only one party's interests, do you?

Of course not. I said in my last email that transcoders have a valid 
place at the table, but it's in deference to mobile developers. As a 
transcoder, it comes as no surprise that you disagree with that, but for 
the W3C community to sign on to that proposition reflects a certain 
perversity of the way business should be done on the mobile web.

> You have a business problem. Luca's solution is "wish that transcoders
> didn't exist." How's that working for you?

We'll see. If you think that's all his solution amounts to, however, 
you're placing yourself at a disadvantage in the debate.

> You are telling me you have a big business problem and won't write two
> lines of code to fix it? Well, it's up to you I guess. I think this
> document is aimed at people who want to find practical ways to
> actually solve the problem.

Problem? There is no problem, if transcoders don't touch anything when 
asked to, including the user-agent, etc. It's so simple. I can't imagine 
why you're arguing this point. After all, your business model is only 
relevant in domains where mobile sites have not been explicitly created, 
right? Unless, of course, what you're really after is plastering links, 
logos, and advertising in or around someone else's site with impunity or 
at the least, plausible deniability, behind the shelter of awkwardly 
defined standards documents.

Terren
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 19:45:14 UTC

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