Re: transcoders bad

Sean Owen wrote:
> I moved this thread to wmlprogramming, can we continue there? will you
> approve my post?
>   

approved. In fact I have whitelisted you, so you can keep on discussing 
while I go to sleep because it's already past midnight here. I'll look 
at the result tomorrow.
> Your comments are well registered, along with those of developers like
> me who think you are mistaken in some ways. It doesn't mean it will
> change just because you made a comment, and in fact, I don't see much
> support here. Assume #2 will happen.
>   
so be it

> How about leaving this list alone and continuing on wmlprogramming,
> your turf? 
>   
OK

Luca
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no> wrote:
>   
>> I see two outcomes here:
>>
>> 1) the working group adopts developers' suggestions (imprimis User-Agent and
>> HTTPS preservation), and developers endorse CTGs.
>>
>> 2) the working group doesn't adopt developers suggestions: I will make sure
>> the mobile world knows that CTGs are NOT endorsed by developers and that W3C
>> is available to put its stamp on whatever document anyone with enough money
>> to seat at the W3C table wants.
>>
>> Personally, I would much prefer the first outcome.
>>     
>
>
>