Re: Comments on Content Transformation Guidelines?

Well I do think you have a point, but again not quite at the HTTPS
level, but at a user or business policy level. The real solution to
this is to in fact authenticate the device with SSL, the other way. In
practice, that's not realistic.

Maybe it's just a difference of approach. I think you've got the "yell
about it" approach nailed down pretty well, and I honestly believe
there is a place for that. If you're a bank and you don't want to
*really* solve the problem with SSL, what can you do? transcoders
exist. Would you rather have nobody offering any protocols for
negotiating solutions to these issues? no hope of identifying a
transcoder consistently?

Sure, you can say, you just don't think this is the bank's
responsibility. Maybe you are right or not, but in practice, that is
not helping them solve a real world problem. Hey, I wish web sites
used valid markup. But I'm the one trying to make a business out of a
mobile web search engine. I can choose whether to find a solution or
explain why it shouldn't be my fault... we choose the former around
here.

I hope you can accept there's also a place to talk about how to
achieve practical solutions to these real issues, like this doc. Yes,
it does presuppose that you are even "willing to negotiate" with these
devils.... I personally don't typically project so much good vs. evil
into my day job, but that's why it's good that there's lots of people
having a conversation here, not just one.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no> wrote:
> I think you are mistaken here. I have talked to people who take HTTPS
> seriously (banks) and they all agree that what transcoders are doing is not
> acceptable. What I hope is that they will make their voice heard here (it's
> not like the whole world is looking at you, but the CTG may come as a nasty
> surprise to many at a later stage)
>
> Luca
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 23:14:24 UTC