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

Re: Technical Historical Minutiae [was RE: ISSUE-288 (includeNonMandatedHeuristics): Should the Content Transformation Guidelines include a non normative list of mobile heuristics ? [Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies]]

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:30:21 +0100
Message-ID: <49B8D62D.4010809@eunet.no>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Jo Rabin wrote:
> Well, politely, I disagree. Over the last few days I have reviewed the
> entire list for the last 4 months. I'd say that the almost the entirety
> of discussion, where it does not involve Luca, is positive, respectful
> and to the point. 

 Jo, where does .mobi stand over the transcoding issue?

does .mobi think that transcoding is gross copyright infringement? yes 
or no? should content owners and developers (to which .mobi has been 
paying lip service all the way) be protected from abusive transcoding 

or does .mobi take the side of Vodafone and agrees that web (and mobile 
web) content is cannon fodder and an operator can do pretty much what 
they want with it without paying a dime to the actual content owners?

Can we get a straight answer?

or maybe (and this is what I think) .mobi is in the embarassing position 
of wishing they could be taking the side of content providers, while 
stuck with having to deal with its investors (notably Vodafone!), which 
forces you, the .mobi CTO, to all kinds of "equilibrisms" to identify an 
inexistent common grounds between the compromise the community has 
already elected and the greed of carriers?

You see, I sympathise with you. I wouldn't want to be in your position. 
But when you write things like the one I just read, you are making my 
sympathizing for you a lot harder.

Am I disrespectful?   I don't think so. Certainly not on this forum. 
That's unless you call standing up for what is right being 
disrespectful. As the editor of the Vodafone rant and the Manifesto (the 
URLs of which you are already know), I feel I represent the signatories 
of those documents (not to mention all the others which expressed their 
support offline).
That community (and there are some big names there) expressed some 
requirements very clearly: "do not spoof the UA string" being the main 
one, of course.

This requirement the CT group is plainly ignoring that basic request, no 
matter if expressed strongly or tactfully.

I am not sure how to put it more positively, respectfully, and 
to-the-pointedly than this.

Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 09:30:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC