Re: Collection of comments from WMLProgramming

Hey Tom

Thanks for finding the time to collect this together.

Some responses:

1. Rigo Wenning, W3C Legal Counsel spoke about this at the recent F2F. I 
may have missed his point badly, but he said that if you put your 
content on the Web then expect Web like things to happen. In respect of 
transformation, if a technical means exists to prohibit transformation 
and you don't use it then ... I confess that I have heard different 
views, but then if lawyers didn't have different views we would not need 
courts, would we? Either way, I am satisfied that CT has taken legal 
advice. I'm note sure what purpose would be served in taking this 
further given that we don't intend to include a note on this in the 
document.

2. That's what the little reference to POWDER is about in one of the 
Appendices. POWDER is not yet dry so can't be referenced, and in any 
case I think that construing a new vocabulary for use under POWDER would 
be beyond our scope.

3. I have no objection to that being compulsory. We do, in any case, 
intend to elaborate the conformance requirements so that a claim of 
conformance must contain a justification for any deviations from SHOULDs 
in any case.

Thanks again
Jo

On 01/11/2008 13:15, Tom Hume wrote:
> 
> Hey
> 
> Anyone with oodles of time to spare reading WMLProgramming will notice 
> that it's been quite busy there recently.
> 
> I've taken a note of a few comments which have been raised on the list 
> and seem worth a look to me. From past experience I suspect that these 
> might have been dealt with already by the group, but in case they 
> haven't... any thoughts?
> 
> 1. Legal aspects of transcoding content have been mentioned many times. 
> My view is that this sort of thing falls well outside the scope of a 
> technical document, and that the legal position wrt IP rights etc will 
> vary worldwide. However it has been pointed out that CTG participants 
> may have access to legal resources which could cast a little light onto 
> the issue, and this might be better than the total darkness it lurks 
> within right now - even if such advice isn't suitable for inclusion into 
> the doc. Any takers?
> 
> 2. A robots.txt-like approach to transcoding has been suggested (back in 
> March[1] and recently), with individual sites providing a means of 
> signalling to a proxy that elements of their content should or should 
> not be transcoded. Sounds like new technology to me, but has anyone 
> considered this approach before?
> 
> 3. Eduardo has suggested that the addition of the standard W3C string 
> into the Via: field be made compulsory, such that any server might 
> detect if its communication is passing via a transcoding proxy. It does 
> seem possible within the current guidelines for a proxy to avoid adding 
> this in, and to hide its identity behind a pseudonym - hiding the fact 
> that a transcoder has potentially manipulated content from the origin 
> server.
> 
> Thanks
> Tom
> 
> 
> [1] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/message/27149
> -- 
> 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 Saturday, 1 November 2008 15:33:30 UTC