Re: [wmlprogramming] Verizon, guidelines

Tom Hume wrote:
>
> Your argument is predicated on transcoders aggressively transcoding 
> and UA spoofing, as the Vodafone/Novarra installation did. My point is 
> that a CTG-compliant transcoder won't do this in the first place, and 
> that the situations you outline as being problematic will not occur.

In (your) theory. In practice, Novarra has used CTG as a tool to justify 
abusive transcoding. This is a fact. No matter how you look at it.

>>>>> No, it wouldn't.  Transcoder vendor just needs to claim that this 
>>>>> is what the user wants. This has also been demonstrated in 
>>>>> practice by Verizon.
>
> Verizon was nothing to do with user choice; it was a false claim that 
> URL pattern matching was an endorsed technique.
>
> Transcoders vendors don't "just need to claim that this is what the 
> user wants". The wording of CTG is quite specific here: users must 
> "specifically request a restructured desktop experience" (i.e. not be 
> presumed to want it), and as Jo has pointed out, transcoders must 
> assume that by default users get the representation intended by the 
> server. CTG is also specific about how preferences are maintained - 
> site by site and user by user.
>
> This is all very specific, and rules out the case you're referring to.

Again, it does not rule it out strongly enough.

>
> Actually, in the mid-90s I remember there were issues with web proxy 
> caches aggressively caching, which caused problems for web developers 
> and meant we had to add HTTP headers. The situation feels analogous to 
> me.

I think there is the added nasty bit of UA-Spoofing here that infringes 
on content owners' right to serve content tailored to the capabilities 
of the requesting device. So, it's different enough.

>
>>>>>> OK, but here CTG and you are in agreement (and I think Jo has 
>>>>>> pointed out specific sections of CTG which state this).
>> No. We are not in agreement. In my view, no action whatsoever should 
>> be required of mobile developers in order for them to protect their 
>> applications. This is a *BIG* difference. The rest is cosmetic.
>
> This is where we agree. Prohibiting transformation is different from 
> protecting an application. By default CTG-conformant transcoders will 
> give unfettered access to mobile apps, without content providers or 
> developers doing any work.
Again, maybe in your theory, but the practical consequences of CTG in 
its current form is that abusive transcoding is justified.


>
> It's only if you want to prohibit transformation completely in all 
> circumstances that you need to do more... in the same way that you 
> have to do more to prohibit caching completely.
To be clear, if transcoders were really opt-in (which they were until 
2007) there would be no need for CTG and developers would have little to 
protect. The need for the Manifesto and, arguably, the CTG is to curb 
transcoders' abusiveness. The Manifesto has come as a natural and widely 
agreed on compromise. CTG is imbalanced in favor of transcoders. This is 
not because of what I say, but because of what reality shows.


>
>>> And given that it can happen, how can it happen without UA spoofing?
>> The Manifesto way, for example, which is being adopted in practice by 
>> loads of installations around the planet (Sprint in the US and Voda 
>> in South Africa, just to mention two off the top of my head).
>> Send the request with original headers. If the response is not 
>> mobile, then transcoders are allowed to re-issue with a spoofed set 
>> of headers to get clean full-web HTML.
>
> So there *are* circumstances, in both CTG and Manifesto, where 
> transcoders are allowed to spoof headers. In Manifesto, it's when a 
> first request has shown the site isn't mobile-aware. In CTG it's when 
> the user asks for it.
Huge difference. And there is no reason for CTG not to adopt it (except 
that Novarra would need to change the way their transcoder works to 
support this)


>
> I note that this setup will cause problems, as Eduardo and I think 
> you, have pointed out. Sites which tie transactions to GET requests 
> (they shouldn't, but they exist) will be affected by this sort of 
> double-hit.

Just another example of how every decision goes in favor of Novarra. 
Anyway, as I have observed before, double-hits are much typically much 
more hurtful to mobile sites than web sites, because of the amount of 
traffic and because of billing issues. To add to that, nothing prevents 
a transcoders from keeping a record of which sites are web-only vs mobe, 
and avoid double-hits for 48 hours on 99% of the URLs it manages in 
those 48 hours.
Of course, this assumes that the operator/vendor configuration has come 
to terms with the idea that mobile-content must be protected. Otherwise 
any excuse is good to trick content owners to retrun web content.

>
>>>>> Me neither, but I think CTG achieves this.
>> No. It doesn't. Where the Manifesto has been adopted, problems have 
>> been solved. Where CTG has been adopted (Verizon), confusion and 
>> frustration has been the result.
>
> CTG has never been adopted. It isn't complete and is clearly marked as 
> such.

yes, it has been adopted by verizon:

http://www.vzwdevelopers.com/aims/downloads/wapoptout/Optimized_View_for_Mobile_Website_Developers_Guide.pdf

"made-for-mobile content is a practice that is described in the current 
working draft of the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies, 
authored by the W3C's Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group. That 
document also describes some of the additional behaviors described later 
in this Developers' Guide.
The current version of the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation 
Proxies is available at the following URL2:
http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/"




>
>
>> But there is more. Transcoder vendors who adopted the Manifesto have 
>> been very responsive to developer issues and worked together with 
>> developers to fix them in actual installations. Vendors who did not 
>> sign, on the other hand, tried to hide behind their customers letting 
>> them take the wrap for their wrong doing.
>
> Really? I saw Vodafone/Novarra whitelist .mobi and m. sites sharpish, 
> and Verizon update their documentation when it was pointed out that it 
> was erroneous. Responding to developers isn't the sole province of 
> Manifesto-compliant vendors.
First, they did it silently without interacting with those who raised 
the issue. This is very different from Infogin and Openwave for example.
Secondly, they softened the language to acknoledge that CTG is work in 
progress, but the point remains that they are using the W3C name to give 
their abusive initiative a shroud of legitimacy.


>
>> well, but Vodafone is a mobile ISP, i.e. not a major wireline ISP. A 
>> real DSL ISP would not make such sloppy mistakes or they would be 
>> flooded by customer calls.
>
> I think you're slightly out of touch if you think that a mobile ISP 
> can't be a major ISP, or isn't "real" in some way.

When voda mobile users will have numbers similar to regular DSL users, 
problems like the one you mentioned will be discovered and fixed way 
more quickly

Luca

Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 13:46:10 UTC