Re: transcoders bad

Just to avoid any uncertainty, I'm not going anywhere until you answer 
my questions. If a spokesman for a transcoder can't make his case 
explicitly here, then he can't make it anywhere.

Sean Owen wrote:
> I moved this thread to wmlprogramming, can we continue there? will you
> approve my post?
> Your comments are well registered, along with those of developers like
> me who think you are mistaken in some ways. It doesn't mean it will
> change just because you made a comment, and in fact, I don't see much
> support here. Assume #2 will happen.
> How about leaving this list alone and continuing on wmlprogramming,
> your turf? You've said your peace.
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Luca Passani <> wrote:
>> I see two outcomes here:
>> 1) the working group adopts developers' suggestions (imprimis User-Agent and
>> HTTPS preservation), and developers endorse CTGs.
>> 2) the working group doesn't adopt developers suggestions: I will make sure
>> the mobile world knows that CTGs are NOT endorsed by developers and that W3C
>> is available to put its stamp on whatever document anyone with enough money
>> to seat at the W3C table wants.
>> Personally, I would much prefer the first outcome.

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 22:10:19 UTC