- From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:53:59 +0000
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Luca I think we've been through this a number of times, so I've moved the discussion away from WMLProgramming. where going around the houses once more on the issue might get you or I banned from the list. My view is that if the current text is objectionable because it contains loopholes, we should tighten up the copy to retain the current meaning, whilst eliminating these loopholes. When I've asked you for stronger wording to remove these loopholes, you've suggested the meaning to be changed[1]. You and I have now seen a use case (in the discussion on WapReview[2]) providing a circumstance where a user might request a transcoded desktop experience over a made-for-mobile. For anyone who (understandably) can't be bothered to wade through discussion to find it, it's thus: 1. Made-for-mobile sites tend to be context-aware and contain less content than their web equivalents. 2. Users are less likely to want full-web content (e.g. long "about" pages, privacy policies) in a mobile context, but may occasionally want it. 3. Transcoders should therefore be in a position to offer transcoded desktop sites over made-for-mobile sites, if and only if such versions are specifically requested. This seems reasonable to me. If I were providing a mobile version of www.futureplatforms.com , I would want mobile users to get this version by default and certainly wouldn't include full details of all our case studies, say, on it; but I can imagine there being rare situations where, nevertheless, users might want to read them in a mobile context. Tom [1] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/message/28956 [2] http://wapreview.com/blog/?p=1837 On 21 Dec 2008, at 14:41, Luca Passani wrote: > > > > 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. > > > -- Future Platforms Ltd e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com t: +44 (0) 1273 819038 m: +44 (0) 7971 781422 company: www.futureplatforms.com personal: tomhume.org
Received on Sunday, 21 December 2008 14:54:35 UTC