Re: transcoders bad

Speaking for myself here...

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Terren Suydam
<> wrote:
> But now, having done that, I have to parse an X-Device-User-Agent?  I have
> to change my existing implementation, retest, and so on, to facilitate an
> entity that historically has done nothing but hurt my business? For realz?

It seems pretty simple. If you don't want transcoding, and aren't
doing content negotiation, and are already using the HTTP
mechanisms properly (i.e. no-transform), then you are done! no change.
This recommendation is not proposing anything new.

If you are doing content negotiation, you need to look for the
presence of one new header in the case that you are talking to a
transcoder, to both ensure you send no-transform and render for the
target device. This seems like two lines of code -- if you're not
already looking for this semi-standard header.

You are angry because you have interests and your interests have
clashed with those of transcoders. I am sure that is valid. This
document does not only represent content developer interests, but the
interests of end users. I don't think it's appropriate for a W3C
recommendation to represent only one party's interests, do you?

Transcoders exist, and they do add value in large number of cases. We
wouldn't operate one unless it was quite popular, since people
wouldn't use our service, we wouldn't make money.

You have a business problem. Luca's solution is "wish that transcoders
didn't exist." How's that working for you?

You are telling me you have a big business problem and won't write two
lines of code to fix it? Well, it's up to you I guess. I think this
document is aimed at people who want to find practical ways to
actually solve the problem.

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 18:35:18 UTC