- From: casays <casays@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:33:36 -0000
- To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
>On WML: > >This is a tricky one. We do actually want WML to be transformed to WMLC. This means you want to recode from WML to WBMXL, but not to restructure -- and indeed, I have seen restructurings of WML code by proxies whose outcome was next to unusable. >On Copyright: >... >Indeed, when authoring HTML, the author cannot have a precise view of >the visual form of their work because intentionally, and by their >nature, Web browsers do not set out to provide identical experiences. Actually, the variation of representations is fundamentally grounded on a specification: HTML 4.0.1 is littered with warnings that it does not prescribe an exact representation of specific constructs and that client programs may take different decisions as to how to handle HTML constructs (including modalities like graphical vs. textual vs. audio browsers). That is the standard, and as such developers and content providers cannot complain of differences in representation within the scope of the standard. It is a completely different matter to perform transformations that are outside the scope of the standard, and in particular the whole gambit of inserting ads, links to extraneous content, logos, and in general media that was not present there in the first place, like is occurring disturbingly more frequently nowadays. Observe that an increasing number of corporate and commercial WWW sites include copyright notices, basically stating: "We developed this content. It belongs to us. No derivative works allowed." The presence of a copyright meta-tag in the original content is indicative of such intended restrictions and should therefore be properly taken into account. E. Casais
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 17:34:25 UTC