W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009

From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:44:35 +0000
Cc: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C72A3A06-D5E9-4F0F-A32E-064848D5725E@futureplatforms.com>
To: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>


On 7 Jan 2009, at 17:59, Luca Passani wrote:

>>>>> >  sean: Sometimes there's content for high-end phones tagged as
>>>>> >  "mobile" that may not work on a low-end phone. We already  
>>>>> have a
>>>>> >  method for keeping proxies away from content, "no-transform"
>>>> Which bit of Seans comment do you disagree with here Luca?
>>> I disagree with the idea that who runs the network feels entitled  
>>> to know better than those who created the application and owns the  
>>> copyright. Can I?
>>
>> Course you can :) I don't see any assertion to the contrary in the  
>> comment from Sean that you quoted.
>
> Sean's comment reveals that Novarra feels entitled to reformat  
> mobile content to make it better (for their definition of better). I  
> disagree with that notion. What's your problem?

I couldn't see much to disagree with in the statement you quoted: some  
content for high-end phones doesn't work on low-end phones. We have a  
method for keeping proxies away from content.

>>> OK, so, since your ask for it, I will repeat all the arguments  
>>> here (and by the way, Russ wrote that comment when he was still  
>>> trying to make Mowser fly, so he was heavily biased at the time).

I don't agree that anyone currently working on a transcoder product is  
temporarily unable to comment on these issues I'm afraid. Was your  
opinion invalid when you worked for OpenWave? Of course not.

> The XHTML Mime type can be used  for web content only theoretically.  
> In practice nobody uses that MIME type for full-web content simply  
> because it would break way too easily on all browsers (save-as  
> dialog for MSIE users, catastrophic error messages and no content at  
> all for Firefox, Opera and Mozilla). Nobody uses XHTML for full web  
> content, not even those who think they are using XHTML (somewhere  
> they'll be doing something which will make all browsers reverse to  
> quicks mode and consider their xhtmllish mark-up as nothing more  
> than tag-soup).
> Because of this, application/xml+xhtml is an excellent heuristics to  
> detect mobile content (the only place where the MIME type is adopted).

Yep, I agree. It's an excellent heuristic - but not absolute. The  
difference between these two states was a topic of debate in the last  
call - you'll see that we're breaking out heuristics which can be  
considered absolute and discussing making support for them more  
necessary.

A quick google shows lots of sites from web developers recommending  
use of xhtml+xml for web content.

--
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 Wednesday, 7 January 2009 18:45:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 January 2009 18:45:12 GMT