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

Re: transcoders bad

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:45:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4898C9DE.4090204@eunet.no>
To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
CC: Terren Suydam <terren@singleclicksystems.com>

Sean Owen wrote:
>
> It seems pretty simple. If you don't want transcoding, and aren't
> doing content negotiation, and are already using the HTTP
> mechanisms properly (i.e. no-transform), then you are done! no change.
> This recommendation is not proposing anything new.
>   
not so. The transcoder may be changing the User-Agent string and still 
claim that it is conforming to CTGs. How? very simple. The operator just 
need to claim that it is a "full web on your mobile phone" they are 
launching (exactly what VodaofoneUK and NOvarra did) and there you go: 
you get a spoofed UA.
> 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.
>   
Terren is right. If we change today, what will prevent Novarra or 
someone else from asking to change tomorrow?
> 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?
>   
this is a blatant lie. NOvarra, Google, Vodafone and ATT are here for 
the money. Do not bring users into a discussion where they do not belong.
Anyway, as I stasted quite a few times, developers are relying on a 
neutral network for their business. Any attempt to remove neutrality is 
an attempt to bring the internet back to stone age.
> Transcoders exist, and they do add value in large number of cases.
really? I only know of one case: Google.
>  We
> wouldn't operate one unless it was quite popular, since people
> wouldn't use our service, we wouldn't make money.
>
> You have a business problem. Luca's solution is "wish that transcoders
> didn't exist." How's that working for you?
>   
well, this is not exactly what I said (I did say that I start to suspect 
that the only good transcoder I saw was a dead transcoder, but that I 
was sort of joking). I am OK with transcoders that respect mobile sites 
without requiring that mobile sites do anything special to protect 
themselves against transcoders.
> 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.
>   
I think the problem is that arrogance cannot be allowed to win.

Luca

>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 21:45:43 UTC

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