RE: CT problem statement

Hi Nigel, I missed your message at first because it lacked a topic. Anyway:

 

1) The statement about masquerading as desktop browsers is not a recommendation, it's an observation. It's in fact a central part of the problem that we're trying to address.

2) The main case considered is as you observe when a mobile operator inserts a transparent content transformation proxy somewhere between the radio network and the internet. The reason for this is that they are the only ones capable of doing this. Anybody can of course setup a content transformation proxy, but you can usually choose to use it or not.

3) Your last statement is a little strange - "companies manipulate standard bodies for their own good"? I'm not sure where you want to go with this - perhaps you could be more specific? 

 

thanks,

 

Magnus

 

________________________________

From: Nigel Choi [mailto:nigelchoi@yahoo.com] 
Sent: den 20 september 2007 02:38
To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
Subject: 

 

Hi there,


I have some comment about the draft Problem Statement. But first, let me introduce myself. I work for Admob, and before that in the Yahoo mobile group, helping to develop their mobile web content delivery platform.

Heeding a call for discussion here in Vodafone Betavine, I am taking the plunge. Hope I don't get devoured :) .

Here's what I think about the Problem Statement from my years of experience. Specifically, in Section 1.2

 

"Content transformation proxies typically work by masquerading as desktop browsers"

 

I strongly object to this characterization. By masquerading as desktop browsers, you are in fact fooling resources that are designed to detect mobile browsers/clients and return their own adapted content. Instead, I would like to see this:

 

"Content transformation proxies should remain transparent during requests for content, and perform its transformation only if it detects that the content returned are intended for desktop consumption".

 

I would go further to say that Content transformation is largely a transitional technology. As more and more publishers become aware of mobile browsing, more of them will adapt their content for mobile consumption.

 

You are also making the assumption that mobile operators are the one operating the Content Transformation Proxy. How about the case that content owners themselves sign up to have their content transcoded for them? Ultimately, it should be left to the content owners themselves to decide how their content is shown to the user, whether they want to do their own adaption, or have their content transcoded. It is problematic, not to mention arrogant, to say that the Operator can decide to shove Content Transformation down the throat of every content owner that's not cozy with the Operator.

 

Having companies manipulate standards body for their own good is not new. But this to me is as blatant as it can get. As an individual I would like to pose as a counterforce. I'm sure in the court of public opinion, common sense always wins.

 

Nigel.