W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Collection of comments from WMLProgramming

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:42:07 +0100
Message-ID: <490EE38F.1090708@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>, public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Ref 3. I just note that we are talking about a "comment" field.

I don't mind making it mandatory, but this would send the signal to 
developers that they can rely on it and using a comment field to send 
some precise information doesn't really sound like a good thing.

That said, I realize that we don't have any alternative to offer, and I 
doubt adding a comment in the Via HTTP header poses any technical problem.

Francois.


Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
> Hey Tom
> 
> Thanks for finding the time to collect this together.
> 
> Some responses:
> 
> 1. Rigo Wenning, W3C Legal Counsel spoke about this at the recent F2F. I 
> may have missed his point badly, but he said that if you put your 
> content on the Web then expect Web like things to happen. In respect of 
> transformation, if a technical means exists to prohibit transformation 
> and you don't use it then ... I confess that I have heard different 
> views, but then if lawyers didn't have different views we would not need 
> courts, would we? Either way, I am satisfied that CT has taken legal 
> advice. I'm note sure what purpose would be served in taking this 
> further given that we don't intend to include a note on this in the 
> document.
> 
> 2. That's what the little reference to POWDER is about in one of the 
> Appendices. POWDER is not yet dry so can't be referenced, and in any 
> case I think that construing a new vocabulary for use under POWDER would 
> be beyond our scope.
> 
> 3. I have no objection to that being compulsory. We do, in any case, 
> intend to elaborate the conformance requirements so that a claim of 
> conformance must contain a justification for any deviations from SHOULDs 
> in any case.
> 
> Thanks again
> Jo
> 
> On 01/11/2008 13:15, Tom Hume wrote:
>>
>> Hey
>>
>> Anyone with oodles of time to spare reading WMLProgramming will notice 
>> that it's been quite busy there recently.
>>
>> I've taken a note of a few comments which have been raised on the list 
>> and seem worth a look to me. From past experience I suspect that these 
>> might have been dealt with already by the group, but in case they 
>> haven't... any thoughts?
>>
>> 1. Legal aspects of transcoding content have been mentioned many 
>> times. My view is that this sort of thing falls well outside the scope 
>> of a technical document, and that the legal position wrt IP rights etc 
>> will vary worldwide. However it has been pointed out that CTG 
>> participants may have access to legal resources which could cast a 
>> little light onto the issue, and this might be better than the total 
>> darkness it lurks within right now - even if such advice isn't 
>> suitable for inclusion into the doc. Any takers?
>>
>> 2. A robots.txt-like approach to transcoding has been suggested (back 
>> in March[1] and recently), with individual sites providing a means of 
>> signalling to a proxy that elements of their content should or should 
>> not be transcoded. Sounds like new technology to me, but has anyone 
>> considered this approach before?
>>
>> 3. Eduardo has suggested that the addition of the standard W3C string 
>> into the Via: field be made compulsory, such that any server might 
>> detect if its communication is passing via a transcoding proxy. It 
>> does seem possible within the current guidelines for a proxy to avoid 
>> adding this in, and to hide its identity behind a pseudonym - hiding 
>> the fact that a transcoder has potentially manipulated content from 
>> the origin server.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> [1] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/message/27149
>> -- 
>> Future Platforms Ltd
>> e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
>> t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
>> m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
>> company: www.futureplatforms.com
>> personal: tomhume.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 11:42:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 November 2008 11:42:49 GMT