Re: Re: CTG: non-traditional browsing applications ( LC-2289)

 Dear Luca Passani ,

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Guidelines for Web
Content Transformation Proxies 1.0 published on 6 Oct 2009. Thank you for
having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ct-guidelines-20100211/.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-bpwg-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 11 March
2010. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
François Daoust
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/4AF810D1.7040909@eunet.no
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/


=====

Your comment on the document as a whole:
> > "Is the current version of the document good enough to ship?"
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> - it is not good enough for mobile developers who desperatly need a 
> solid platform to build their apps (and not a spec that can be
> leveraged 
> by someone somewhere to justify messing with HTTP in unforeseeable
> ways)
> 
> - it is not good enough for content owners (who don't want to have
> their 
> content messed with)
> 
> - it is not good enough for telcos which want to deploy transcoders 
> (there are no clear rules about what they should and should not do to 
> avoid liability when they transcode other companies' content)
> 
> The only people who CTG is good for at the moment are transcoder 
> vendors, who can refer to a document which is ambiguous enough that
> they 
> can read whatever they want into it and wrap their products into a 
> shroud of W3C legitimacy.
> 
> Luca


Working Group Resolution (LC-2289):
It is not the intention of this document to address legal, moral or
liability issues. We do not think that this document is to be viewed as the
final word on the subject, though we think it is a valuable contribution.

----

Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 22:32:05 UTC