- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:14:09 +0100
- To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
- Cc: <nigel@admob.com>
Comments from Nigel Choi attached: -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Choi [mailto:nigel@admob.com] Sent: 04 October 2007 18:16 To: Jo Rabin Subject: Re: New version of Problem Statement Document 1e Jo, Thanks, that was good work. I have some comments. Instead of posting directly to the mailing list (which I had problems last time) could you please kindly consider and forward. My comment is about this statement in 2.1 "Some Web sites [Definition: mobile blocking], aware that access is not from the expected desktop context, send an HTTP error status code indicating that they cannot present an acceptable experience for the user, thus preventing access from mobile users." I'd expand that into (pardon my English, it's not my native tongue) "Some Web sites [Definition: mobile blocking], aware that access is not from the expected desktop context, send and HTTP error status code indicating that they cannot present an acceptable experience for the user, or a page that warns the user that their browser is not supported. These Web sites prevent access from mobile users." What I am getting at is perhaps a new Requirement: "Such mobile blocking notice should be made available to the end user, so they know that the original server is mobile blocking, and is given a choice to use the transformation proxy." The transformation proxy can then advertise its ability to masquerade as a desktop browser, by inserting a link in the content or through other means where the user can configure the behavior. This way the end user is aware that the origin server is not capable of sending them an experience tailored to their device, but there is a content transformation proxy there to assist. It looks like the assumption here is that mobile blocking is always undesired. In any case, I think it needs to be made clear that sometimes such mobile blocking behavior is consistent with the intent of the origin server. I'd argue that users should at least be made aware of the mobile blocking behavior of the original site, and should be given a choice. Yes, I'm building an argument against masquerading the User-Agent by default, if all the complaints out there about Vodafone UK's and Novarra's practice is not proof enough. Thanks, Nigel.
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 18:14:38 UTC