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

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 13 January 2009

From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:05:33 +0000
Message-Id: <D4B673C5-70EB-4D17-8581-A8721BBCB8B5@futureplatforms.com>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

You sure about that, Luca?

The proposal was put up by Jo, and it was Eduardo and myself who  
argued against it, setting out the points below - not transcoder  
vendors. I can't speak for Eduardo, but I was wearing my tin-foil hat  
throughout the call to avoid any interference the transcoding industry  
might exert on my thinking.

Tom

On 14 Jan 2009, at 14:49, Luca Passani wrote:

>
>
> yet another decision from W3C which goes in the direction of helping  
> transcoder vendors transcode more, and against the interest of  
> content owners who want to protect their content from transcoders.  
> Congratulations.
>
> Luca
>
> Tom Hume wrote:
>>
>> Luca
>>
>> Look from the section "Included resources of a non transformed  
>> resource should not be transformed" downwards in the minutes.
>>
>> In short order we came up with a number of reasons why this wasn't  
>> as attractive an idea as it originally seemed, and voted against it:
>>
>> - resources may not be referenced from markup at all
>> - this would shift HTTP from a request/response model to a document/ 
>> sub-documents model
>> - dependencies on sub-documents may be recursive
>> - content providers may wish to have documents transformed, but  
>> images not transformed
>>
>> Tom
>
>
>

--
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, 14 January 2009 15:06:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:59 UTC