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

Re: Changing User Agent Header Value (was Re: transcoders bad)

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:38:13 +0200
Message-ID: <489A19C5.9060206@eunet.no>
To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Sean Owen wrote:
> I think one of Jo's points is that the W3C is not the government or
> any kind of enforcement agency. Transcoder vendors can do whatever
> they like, period, regardless of what any of us write. One can only
> recommend.
>   
well, given the current status, I think it is better discard the CTGs 
completely. Here are the shortcomings of the CTGs:

- as you say, CTGs are not binding for transcoders (no W3C police around)
- CTGs compliance does not bring enough protection for content owners 
(as the discussion you have triggered on WMLProgramming is demonstrating)
- CTGs can still be used by vendors and operators to justify their 
totally non-standard practices and abusive business practices
- CTGs conflict in some important parts with the Manifesto for 
Responsible Reformatting (which already has incredibly wide industry 
support by the developer community, which has already been adopted by 
key transcoder vendors such Infogin and Openwave, and is being used by 
operators across the globe as the basis for their requirements for 
transcoding)

I realize it is a pity to discard all the work done so far, but why 
struggle for a different balance than what already achieved through the 
bloodshed we witnessed last April?
> How about this part?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/#sec-request-no-transform
>  A transcoder that follows this recommendation does not force
> transcoding on all requests, which sounds like something everyone
> agrees on.
>   
I still think CTGs should simply be discarded, but if you really want to 
write something I am happy with, what about?

"Network operators should not install transcoders as the default 
gateways across which all standard WAP/WEB traffic is routed"

Luca
> This is the place to submit a proposed change, perhaps related to
> these sections.
>   
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no> wrote:
>   
>> the problem is that the rule is big enough that transcoder vendors can run a
>> train through it. They just need to claim that it's "full web on a mobile
>> phone" they are launching, and there you go, everyone gets trascoded (this
>> is exactly what VodaUK did, by the way).
>>
>> What about having a rule that says that Network operators are not supposed
>> to make transcoders manage all HTTP requests for their main/default WAP
>> configuration on devices?
>>
>> How do I submit a proposed change?
>>     
>
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 21:38:52 UTC

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