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

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 13 January 2009

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:36:10 +0100
Message-ID: <496E066A.6060102@eunet.no>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>


say whatever you want. I am just observing that, for one reason or the 
other, the decisions of the WG consistently go in the favor of 
transcoder vendors. Be it:

- highfalutin disquisitions over the nature of HTTP,
- counter examples brought about by broken mobile sites,
- previous practices established by transcoder vendors themselves 3 
months earlier,
- fanciful hypothesis about what a mobile developer may want (please 
don't transcode my site, but transcode my pictures!),

the result does not change: decisions consistently go the transcoder way.

who do you think you are fooling?

Luca

Tom Hume wrote:
>
> 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 15:36:51 UTC

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