Re: [wmlprogramming] Verizon, guidelines

On 22 Dec 2008, at 17:40, Luca Passani wrote:

> Right, but since you two are both part of the CTG WG, it would be  
> nice if answers to the same CTG-related question were consistent.

Actually, we're allowed to disagree ;)

(not that I think we are here, just giving different answers).

>> 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.
>
> Well, my point is still that developers should not be required to  
> change their applications in any way, in that the responsability of  
> recognizing mobile-optimised sites should sit squarely and  
> unambiguously on the shoulders of both transcoder vendors and  
> operators who adopt those transcoders. This is also what the  
> Manifesto aims at (but not the CTG, as far as I understand).
>
> In this context, the recommended use of "no-transform" is already  
> not an option in my opinion.

Right. Do you fancy answering the question now?

You gave examples of 2 situations which you felt were problematic. I  
ran through them and couldn't see a problem with them; in both cases a  
CTG-compliant transcoder would deliver the experience you wanted for  
users and content providers, without any additional work for the  
developer.

So either I've misunderstood something important (entirely possible),  
or there's no issue here. Can you explain to me why there's any  
problem here, bearing in mind the explanation I've posted?

>>>>>>> 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.
> right. So, my original point stands. W3C must make their specs extra  
> tight to make sure that their recommendations are not misrepresented.

Absolutely. And they need help from everyone to do this. Shouting "I  
don't like these guidelines" every time someone asks you to help  
tighten up the language of them doesn't count as help.

>>>> I think I have addressed this one: the user does not have some  
>>>> kind of natural right to access a transcoded website. They can do  
>>>> so as individuals under their own responsibility, but there  
>>>> should not be a W3C document which endorses a non-existent right  
>>>> to access transcoded websites from a mobile phone.

Once again, it's you vs RFC2616.

> On the other hand, the content owner may wish that their transcoded  
> web site is made available to end-users as a way to jump start their  
> mobile offering. In this case, they should provide a link (ideally  
> at the beginning of the page) which reads "Make this site available  
> on mobile". The actual URL could be something like:
> http://google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.futureplatforms.com

No-one is stopping them from doing this.

>> 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.
> Cool. Is this W3C's official position?

I'm not sure, though it's consistent with the advice from W3C counsel.  
Given that it's in the spec for HTTP, I'd be surprised if not.

> Let's agree to disagree then. Two distinct positions here:
> 1) I (and many other content owners and developers) think that  
> transcoders should keep their hands off third-party content without  
> the need for content owners to do anything at all.

Is that really the position of lots of developers - that transcoding  
shouldn't happen at all? I get that over-aggressive transcoding and  
incidents like Novarra/Vodafone have caused us all problems, but I'm  
not convinced that not wanting these problems to persist or repeat is  
the same as saying "transcoders shouldn't exist".

>
> 2) W3C (or just CTG WG?) think that it's the content owner  
> responsability to change their applications to protect their content  
> AND the way to do it is "no-transform".
> Is 2) W3C's position? yes or no?

It's my position, but I'm not a spokesperson for W3C.

Communicating with communities outside mobile-land (e.g. the AJAX  
guys) seemed to confirm the idea that no-transform is the way to say  
no to transformation.

Tom

--
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 Monday, 22 December 2008 17:54:39 UTC