- From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:40:12 +0000
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
On 7 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Luca Passani wrote: >>> > sean: Sometimes there's content for high-end phones tagged as >>> > "mobile" that may not work on a low-end phone. We already have a >>> > method for keeping proxies away from content, "no-transform" >> [snip] >> Which bit of Seans comment do you disagree with here Luca? > I disagree with the idea that who runs the network feels entitled to > know better than those who created the application and owns the > copyright. Can I? Course you can :) I don't see any assertion to the contrary in the comment from Sean that you quoted. >>> This is not what I was talking about, or, at the very least, your >>> point is only very remotely connected to what I was saying. Asian >>> users have all the rights to complain that a given service isn't >>> working properly on their devices. In addition, it is in the >>> interest of the content owner to support those users with >>> "lighter" versions of the application. What is NOT ok, is for >>> someone else to use this scenario as an excuse to interfere with >>> an existing application. Developing for mobile is hard enough >>> because of device fragmentation. Legalizing attempts to "fix" the >>> application outside of the programmers control are a sure-fire way >>> to totally cripple a development platform which already has enough >>> problems of its own. I apologise if I've misinterpreted you. You said > In short, Novarra is getting ready to reformat perfectly OK mobile > content, just because someone somewhere may have a legacy device > (and which definition of legacy is up to them to decide) I'm pointing out some recent experience demonstrating this exact situation - with legacy devices existing in the wild, outside territories where they may have been long-dormant. I think I wrongly interpreted your "someone somewhere" as exasperation. >> So... is "mobile" a binary state (when applied to content)? Or are >> there various forms of mobile content? I'd say the latter (XHTML- >> MP, cHTML, WML, AJAX-supporting, etc.). > yes. And it's hard enough for developers to support those without > also having to deal with transcoders. Absolutely - but I think you and I have a clear understanding of where we differ in how to avoid the transcoding issue. >> to be totally honest I also wanted to comment about Bryan >> expectation that W3C should legitimate those nasty looking >> navigation bars that operators want to place on top of perfectly OK >> mobile content. I'll keep this for another time and just express my >> appreciation of Jo's rebuttal of ATT's attempt. Thanks :) > While I'm here, it still does not make sense that the XHTML MIME > type is not accepted as an indication that a site is mobile. This is > the situation with 99%+ of the content out there (application/xml > +xhtml == MOBILE), so there you have a perfectly simple and > effective way to detect mobile. This is not universally true though - you and I discussed this back in March last year on my blog posting at http://www.tomhume.org/2008/03/guidelines-for.html Where Russ Beattie popped up to point out that whilst this MIME type is a decent heuristic (and it's noted as such in CT), it's not absolute. Tom -- 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 Wednesday, 7 January 2009 17:40:53 UTC