Re: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about CT and Cache-Control extensions

On Feb 5, 2008 1:34 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

> > I see no reason to stop users from accessing the content they want.
>
> I think this is a good example of where the user's desires and the CPs
> desires are in conflict. And it seems reasonable to me that a CP's
> instruction should be obeyed even if it doesn't make sense to you. For
> example, if for some irrational reason I say I don't want my content
> delivered to browser x, you should not thwart my intention and desire.


Well I guess we may have to agree to disagree :)  My opinion is that the
user's preference trumps the content providers.

Now, if a content provider _truly_ has some reason to hide their content
from people, despite putting it on the open web then they could block
content transformation proxies by IP I suppose.  However, if they were going
to go to this length, it would be much easier to specify a simple mobile
alternative saying "Gee, I can't be bothered to make a good mobile version,
please visit my site from your desktop."


> To my mind this is at the heart of why we need something more fine grained
> than no-transform. It wouldn't usually make sense for a CP to prevent
> transformation of a page to WML if the general look and feel is preserved.
> On the other hand there are loads of use cases where it makes perfect sense
> for the CP not to want the content delivered at all if you were going to
> re-paginate it.


I think it's going to be very hard to define a set of rules (extensions) for
no-transform that cover everything.  Pagination is only one dimension of a
very complex problem.

Aaron