Re: [wmlprogramming] Verizon, guidelines

Tom Hume wrote:
> Erm no, Verizon did that actually. 

Operators have typically no clue about how this stuff works. If they 
quote W3C, it is because Novarra told them to (and how).

> 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.
Believe me. Openwave and InfoGin have been much more proactive in 
helping than Novarra has ever been. Among other things, they stopped 
spoofing, which Novarra/Verizon have not done. 

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

It's not a red herring. It's the linchpin of the whole discussion. By 
spoofing the UA, mobile sites no longer know the final recipient of 
their content is a user with a mobile phone.

>> 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. 

you see how irritating you can  be? W3C is to blame because they have 
created a working draft which was easily misrepresentable. I warned 
about this before it happened and it has happened exactly as I had 
described. Where did I get credits or acknowledgement for that?

Secondly, W3C has fixed nothing. Novarra/Verizon are still spoofing.

> At the same time, when Manifesto signatories abusively transcode then 
> you take no responsibility personally and praise them for reacting.

Mystification has obviously become your favorite sport. First, the 
Manifesto requests that transcoders are compliant for their default 
configuration. This allows developers to turn to abusive operators for 
complaints. This is to prevent that the disgusting theater that VodaUK 
and Novarra set up last year, when Voda was blaming Novarra for the 
abuse, and Novarra was blaming Voda.
With the Manifesto responsibilities are clear.

But I am not done. In spite of the fact that I am not required to react 
to anything, I did took up the task of contacting transcoder vendors 
when developers were reporting a problem. I could only observe that they 
were very responsive and fixed the problems effectively. Again, there is 
no evidence of this with any Novarra installation. Whitelisting m.* and 
*.mobi was already part of the platform. Fixing the reference to W3C to 
acknowledge that CTG is work in progress does not look like much of an 
intervention to me.

> 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.

InfoGin has been proactive in fixing problems. Novarra/Verizon have not 
(they are still spoofing)

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

yes, but you don't need CTG to authorize you to do it. Just create a 
transcoder that spoofs.  Creating CTG establishes a dangerous precedent: 
you change the rules single handedly, W3C will come and clean up for you 

>>> 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.

Novarra does not support content tasting. If CTG were to require content 
tasting to avoid UA-Spoofing on mobile sites, this would mean extra work 
for Novarra in order to make their platform compliant.
Also, content tasting causes problems to mobile sites mainly. With the 
Manifesto, mobile sites are not subject to content tasting.

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

The Manifesto does not promote them. The Manifesto allows them if a 
transcoder really has to. Don't try to play tricks please.
This exception was added in the process of finding a good compromise 
between mobile developers and transcoder vendors.

> 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.

Not clear enough. In fact they got it wrong before I, you and others 
pointed out the "error".

> 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.

Mistake. Novarra only reacted to operator pressure. Operator were scared 
by the bad publicity coming from bloggers and such. There is no sign 
that Novarra are responding to developers.

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

Your point is wrong. You are making this up.

Anyway, I think I will give up on convincing you. An Italian saying goes 
"No one can get any deafer than those who don't want to listen". You are 
a perfect example of this. Now that you have recurred to mystification 
and are disregarding facts there is not much more left to say. You are 
in bad faith.

I am happy with the result that has been achieved, though. The Manifesto 
is for those who think that transcoders should solely bare the 
responsibility of protecting mobile content. CTG is for those who are OK 
changing their application to work around issues caused by aggressive 

This is enough. You keep doing CTG. I keep doing the Manifesto. Please 
refrain from saying that the Manifesto and CTG are similar. They are 
fundamentally different.


Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 14:46:39 UTC