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

Re: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:05:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4964FCFC.7090900@eunet.no>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Tom Hume wrote:

 > Was your opinion invalid when you worked for OpenWave? Of course not.

not invalid, but certainly biased (i.e. less credible) when talking 
about something that impacted the business model of my employer.
Novarra has shown on multiple occasions that they benefit from 
transcoding as much as possible, so it is obvious that a statement like 
"we can transcode mobile content to make it better" must be evaluated in 
the context of a company which has economic interest in doing so. I am 
not sure why I need to explain this to you. You are supposed to know 
what biased means already.

>
> Yep, I agree. It's an excellent heuristic - but not absolute. 

I disagree.  It is 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. 

and careful research will show that < 0,0001% full-web websites use 
xhtml+xml (as Novarra and any other transcoder vendor will be able to 
confirm).

Luca
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 19:06:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 January 2009 19:06:13 GMT