W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > October 2007

FW: New version of Problem Statement Document 1e

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:14:09 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4732F79@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Cc: <nigel@admob.com>


Comments from Nigel Choi attached:


-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Choi [mailto:nigel@admob.com] 
Sent: 04 October 2007 18:16
To: Jo Rabin
Subject: Re: New version of Problem Statement Document 1e

Jo,

Thanks, that was good work. I have some comments. Instead of posting 
directly to the mailing list (which I had problems last time) could you 
please kindly consider and forward.

My comment is about this statement in 2.1

"Some Web sites [Definition: mobile blocking], aware that access is not 
from the expected desktop context, send an HTTP error status code 
indicating that they cannot present an acceptable experience for the 
user, thus preventing access from mobile users."

I'd expand that into (pardon my English, it's not my native tongue)

"Some Web sites [Definition: mobile blocking], aware that access is not 
from the expected desktop context, send and HTTP error status code 
indicating that they cannot present an acceptable experience for the 
user, or a page that warns the user that their browser is not supported.

These Web sites prevent access from mobile users."

What I am getting at is perhaps a new Requirement:

"Such mobile blocking notice should be made available to the end user, 
so they know that the original server is mobile blocking, and is given a

choice to use the transformation proxy."

The transformation proxy can then advertise its ability to masquerade as

a desktop browser, by inserting a link in the content or through other 
means where the user can configure the behavior. This way the end user 
is aware that the origin server is not capable of sending them an 
experience tailored to their device, but there is a content 
transformation proxy there to assist.

It looks like the assumption here is that mobile blocking is always 
undesired. In any case, I think it needs to be made clear that sometimes

such mobile blocking behavior is consistent with the intent of the 
origin server. I'd argue that users should at least be made aware of the

mobile blocking behavior of the original site, and should be given a
choice.

Yes, I'm building an argument against masquerading the User-Agent by 
default, if all the complaints out there about Vodafone UK's and 
Novarra's practice is not proof enough.

Thanks,
Nigel.
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 18:14:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:36 GMT