W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: [Agenda] BPWG 2010-09-28

From: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:42:46 +0100
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <EAA354E6-43F1-45F1-B18C-D278D2C3FC1C@linguafranca.org>
To: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
Eduardo

I agree with your sentiment here and wish that it was all otherwise.

I think that the existence of a WG note does, though, provide some force and is referenceable by those that wish to reference it. As you say, it would be nice to hear from group members how they wish to take advantage of the existence of this document.

Jo

On 28 Sep 2010, at 13:53, Eduardo Casais wrote:

>> With thanks to those who submitted implementation 
>> reports, the time has come regretfully to accept that we
>> have not received sufficient reports to progress this 
>> document along Rec track.
>> 
>> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: "Downgrade" CT
>> Guidelines to a WG Note and request publication as
>> such.
> 
> After all the time and effort invested in the CTG, this is a
> most regrettable conclusion.
> 
> I cannot believe the lack of implementation reports is 
> caused by an inability of the operators; after all, they
> know very well what their deployed transcoders are 
> capable of and how they are configured, have had largely
> enough time to prepare themselves for the final version of
> the CTG, filling ICS is part of the job in telecoms, and they
> could draw some marketing advantage from being 
> compliant with the guidelines. As for test suites, I am
> convinced they exist at the transcoder vendors, since
> otherwise how would they even check that their systems
> implement what they are supposed to do?
> 
> I presume that no ICS are forthcoming because the main
> parties have lost interest in the matter; the hot topic
> currently is not browsing, nor supporting a wide spectrum
> of mobile phones -- but apps and apps store for high-end
> devices. 
> 
> All this is a bit sad, since
> 
> a) In several markets, the state of affairs regarding
> transcoders is essentially as bad today as it was three
> years ago (try Vodafone Portugal for one example). We 
> remain without a formal guideline to compell bad citizens to
> respect good practices in the mobile Web ecosystem.
> 
> b) There was a first wave of transcoding ten years ago
> (making Web sites available to WAP 1 devices); the 
> current one, initiated three years ago, is largely to make
> desktop sites available to WAP 2 devices (driven by the
> emergence of iPhone and "full-web-capable" phones). 
> If history is any guide, there will be another game changer
> in three years which will result in yet another wave of
> transcoding -- perhaps something like converting evolved,
> rich e-book content from tablet/reader formats to mobile 
> phone HTML5-based formats. At that time, we will
> just have an informational document, no experience with
> recording and enforcing guidelines, nor any feedback on
> their practicality or completeness, nor an evaluation of
> some of the most contentious issues (such as HTTPS
> rewriting), nor a process to incorporate changes entailed
> by new technology.
> 
> I look forward to hearing how group members (especiallly
> operators and transcoder vendors) will utilize the CTG,
> even if only as a WG note.
> 
> E.Casais
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:43:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:43:25 GMT