Re: [wmlprogramming] Verizon, guidelines

On 23 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Luca Passani wrote:

> 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.

Erm no, Verizon did that actually. Then stopped doing it when they  
were pulled up on it, in the same way that InfoGin (a Manifesto  
signatory) fixed things after you contacted them.

>>>>>> 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.

Indeed, but UA-spoofing is a red herring, as it won't happen for made- 
for-mobile services under CTG anyhow.

> Again, maybe in your theory, but the practical consequences of CTG  
> in its current form is that abusive transcoding is justified.

This is a really shakey argument Luca: W3C are to blame when an  
unfinished document is misquoted, yet get no credit for sorting the  
problem out. At the same time, when Manifesto signatories abusively  
transcode then you take no responsibility personally and praise them  
for reacting.

It seems like a case of double standards being applied. I don't see  
how W3C are any more responsible for the actions of Verizon than you  
are for those of InfoGin. And I don't see how Verizon remain evil  
after correcting their errors, whilst InfoGin get the benefit of the  
doubt.

>>>> 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)

Well, there are reasons, like the use case I've outlined for where  
users might prefer to get a transcoded version.

>> 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.

I don't see how this goes in favour of Novarra, can you explain that  
assertion? Content tasting causes problems, lots of developers have  
pointed this out.

> 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.

So we're in agreement that double-hits are bad; yet the Manifesto  
promotes them and CTG prohibits them.

>>>>>> CTG has never been adopted. It isn't complete and is clearly  
>>>>>> marked as such.
> yes, it has been adopted by verizon:

Then they are in error. The document itself says "It is inappropriate  
to cite this document as other than work in progress". I'm not sure  
how much clearer it could be.

>> 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.

Did they? That's even better then - Novarra/Vodafone are fixing things  
without interacting with anyone (i.e. of their own accord) whilst  
others need prodding. Actually, I don't think that's what has happened  
here: I think in both cases folks from the mobile web community  
approached them and got things done.

My point is that when prodded, many transcoder vendors have been  
responsive, whether they're signatories to Manifesto or not.

>>> --

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 Tuesday, 23 December 2008 14:13:01 UTC