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

Re: [minutes] 12 May 2009 Teleconference

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:22:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4A0A9149.1000803@eunet.no>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Tom Hume wrote:
>> "tom: Agree, this is saying IE Mobile shouldn't transform, but not sure that
>> this could be extended to other browsers not transforming."
>> But it certainly can be extended to transcoders to let them know they should
>> not transcode.
>>     
>
> There's an explanation of what this tag is for here:
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/iemobile/archive/2006/08/03/Detecting_IE_Mobile.aspx
>   

right, and what I read is:

"Setting it on your page can turn off all of our layout optimizations 
and do them all server-side or in HTML yourself, if you really want to 
be particular about how things look."

now, please explain to me how:

- the explanation of what MobileOptimised means,
- the lip service everyone here has paid to respecting the will of 
content owners, and
- the decision not to recognize MobileOptimised as a clear 
"no-transcode" sign

can be made co-hexist logically here.

> It's a hint to IE to turn off layout optimisations for mobile devices.
> I don't think it follows that content designed specifically for mobile
> IE can automatically be considered ready for consumption on *all*
> other mobile devices.

but this was not the point. The point was "is MobileOptimised an 
indiction that the site is already mobile-Optimised"? and the answer is 
yes. And you guys are going out of your way with all kinds of funny 
reasoning to screw content owners and rule in favor of transcoder 
vendors. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

>  If I access a site designed for mobile IE using
> a Series 40 browser, it may be helpful to me for transformation to
> take place (subject to the no-transform being respected and headers
> only being altered if the user has specifically asked for them to be,
> etc etc).
>   

yes, it may. After all, I *may* win the national lottery this weekend 
and forget about CTG.

There is a chance in one million that a site optimised for mobile works 
better on mobile if a transcoder puts its dirty hands on it. In the 
other 9.999.999 cases, the transcoder will make things worse. Nokia 
series 40 devices run Safari these days and will work really well with 
XHTML optimised for mobile explorer.



> IMHO it's also a poor heuristic for determining mobile-readiness,
> given that it's proprietary to a single vendor, and other more
> prevalent mechanisms exist.
>   

this is an easily recognizable attempt to mud the waters. The question 
is "Will this heuristic tell us if content is mobile optimised?"  the 
answer is "yes".  We are talking heuristics here. We are not talking 
adherence to standards.


>
>  Of course, I am no longer expecting you to acknowledge
>   
>> self-evidence, Tom. Do you still go around claiming that you represent
>> developers of some sort?
>>     


Luca
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 09:23:00 UTC

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