Re: [wmlprogramming] Verizon, guidelines

 > I suggest you re-read section 4.1.5 of the CT document:
 >  http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/#sec-altering-header-values

I am very familiar with this section. As I have argued in the past, 
though, I think the only sensible thing to do is to remove clause 1,2 
and 3 (particularly 2!) completely.
Those clauses represent loopholes which make it harder to demonstrate 
that  this or that operator is in breach of CTG when they refer to CTG 
(because of 4.1.5 clause 2, the operator can always argue that, after 
all, the user wanted a web experience and this is still OK for W3C).

The value of CTG is the possibility for transcoder vendors to appear as 
if their installations comply to W3C rules. For this reason, W3C must do 
whatever it can to remove loopholes (like the three clauses in 4.1.5) 
and avoid that the W3C name is used as a tool in the hands of those who 
abuse the ecosystem and behave unfairly to other mobile stakeholders 
(primarily content owners and mobile developers who may have a mobile 
experience in place).

Luca

Tom Hume wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 2008, at 18:50, Luca Passani wrote:
>
>>> We resolved to add an explicit text in this section that states that 
>>> inferring that a desktop User-Agent is needed in the absence of any 
>>> indication (e.g. URI patterns) is contrary to the guidelines.
>> Francois, Can I find the text  you are referring to somewhere?
>
> It's a resolution referred to at the top of the minutes here:
>
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0079.html
>
> "Add some text in 4.1.5 to state that inferring that a desktop 
> User-Agent is needed in the absence of any indication (e.g. URI  
> patterns) is contrary to the guidelines"
>     
>> anyway, my interpretation of your sentence is that, in case of a URI 
>> of the form "www.*" it is OK to spoof the UA string. Do I understand 
>> correctly?
>
> I suggest you re-read section 4.1.5 of the CT document:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/#sec-altering-header-values
>
> This section of the document makes it clear that HTTP headers are not 
> to be altered other than in specific circumstances, and would prohibit 
> transcoders from changing user-agents in situations where URLs don't 
> match patterns judged to be mobile-specific... which is the behaviour 
> Verizon/Novarra were suggesting is OK. The reaction from the CT group 
> has been to specifically add a section saying "no, this isn't OK".
>
> Bearing in mind your new rule that "engaging in long discussion is 
> only acceptable when done in good
> faith with an open mind and respect for other people's viewpoints." 
> I'm not sure we can usefully discuss this particular point much further.

Received on Sunday, 21 December 2008 14:41:46 UTC