Re: [wmlprogramming] Verizon, guidelines

On 22 Dec 2008, at 16:54, Luca Passani wrote:

>> In this situation, the transcoder ought to offer the WML version by  
>> default (i.e. no spoofing UA). If the user asks for a transcoded  
>> full-web version, the transcoder will request the site with a  
>> desktop user agent and should then refuse to serve a transcoded  
>> version to the user.
>> So user experience is: get a mobile site, request a transcoded  
>> version, get told "sorry, no, you can't have that".
>> And the experience for the content provider is: mobile users get  
>> mobile version. Desktop users get desktop version. Desktop version  
>> is never transcoded, because the site said "don't transform me".
> this seems different from the explanation provided by Jo. Jo says  
> that developers should implement yet another header (Vary)

Well, I'm not Jo, or telepathically linked to him ;)

Can you clarify for me where the problem in your scenario exists?  
Playing it out as I did above, I can't see the issue.

>>>>> What I meant by "are not normative" is that the Chicago police  
>>>>> won't show up at the Novarra office and arrest the CTO for their  
>>>>> abuse of the W3C name in the Verizon installation. :)

You are correct to point out that the W3C are not a law enforcement  
agency, yes.

>> Correct. But it would be much simpler for everyone to see that you  
>> are blatantly misrepresenting what is in the Manifesto.

Not if we write the CT doc in such a way that ambiguities aren't  
lurking in it.

>> What do you think of the use case I outlined btw? It seems  
>> convincing to me, in that I could imagine myself wanting to do it  
>> as a user, and accepting it as a content provider.
> I am sorry. I must have lost this bit somewhere. Which use case?

This one:

> 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.


>> I don't follow this, though given that there is at least one case  
>> where it acceptable (to me) to replace the UA (user asking for it),  
>> it's irrelevant IMHO.
> This is a place where I think most of the disagreement is. My point  
> is that the user does not have a natural right to transcode whatever  
> he sees fit for transcoding. The content owner must always have a  
> chance to say "do not transcode my stuff, no matter what the user  
> wants".

We're going round in circles again. Content owners have this right,  
they express it through no-transform. Absence of no-transform is  
permission to transform. This is all in RFC2616.

>>  If W3C decides to accept this, they should at least choose a  
>> different header to show that they are not at the mercy of those  
>> who pay to sit at the table.

I'd rather have HTTP headers chosen for sound technical reasons than  
to "send messages" or make points, personally. Particularly if the  
upshot of the latter is more work for developers.

--
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