RE: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about CT and Cache-Control extensions

> I see no reason to stop users from accessing the content they want.

I think this is a good example of where the user's desires and the CPs desires are in conflict. And it seems reasonable to me that a CP's instruction should be obeyed even if it doesn't make sense to you. For example, if for some irrational reason I say I don't want my content delivered to browser x, you should not thwart my intention and desire.

To my mind this is at the heart of why we need something more fine grained than no-transform. It wouldn't usually make sense for a CP to prevent transformation of a page to WML if the general look and feel is preserved. On the other hand there are loads of use cases where it makes perfect sense for the CP not to want the content delivered at all if you were going to re-paginate it. 

Jo



________________________________________
From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Kemp
Sent: 04 February 2008 16:10
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: public-bpwg-ct
Subject: Re: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about CT and Cache-Control extensions

On Feb 4, 2008 9:59 AM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote:
Further, whether a gateway should take HTML (in the presence of a no-transform directive) and convert it to WML/WMLC if the browser doesn't support HTML, is another question; probably no, but again we're unlikely to see any changes in gateways that do act this way.

I disagree that the answer is "probably no" -- we currently do this and we see lots of mobile usage from WML only devices, and they primarily visit HTML pages.  I see no reason to stop users from accessing the content they want.

Aaron

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 18:34:52 UTC