Re: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009

Sean, what is this new incredible product to re-optimise 
mobile-optimised sites called?
or is it simply an extension of the vision server?

> For example, when I go directly to
> mobile.osnews.com (no CT proxy) and click on a link in one
> of the entries, it will frequently lock up my phone because
> the linked-to page is too big.  (My phone is a couple of
> years old and doesn't have a lot of memory.)

there are millions of sites out there and thousands of different 
devices. I am sure that you can find a combination of both to make any 
point you want.
Fortunately, I think it will take you a bit more to convince W3C that 
letting novarra reformat already optimised sites is acceptable, since 
this would go against W3C's legal opinion that you cannot reformat 
content which the author did not intend to be reformatted. Of course, it 
would also go against the whole point of the W3C mobile initiative (why 
teach people to create W3C-ok mobile content if Novarra can change it in 
W3C name?)

 > The user may want to see a toolbar to make it easier to access CT
 > features (e.g., bookmarks, history, etc.).

yes, the user may want to chant the praise of Novarra every morning and 
call their broker to buy loads of Novarra stocks before everyone else 
realizes how cool your company is. Let no limit be placed on divine 
providence!

Here is a prediction for 2009. Novarra and W3C will realize (each on its 
own) that this CTG marriage cannot happen. Too much disrepute for W3C 
and too stiff constraints for Novarra to abuse as much as they would like.

Follow my advice: start respecting mobile content and explicitly manage 
the list of web sites that can legitimately be transcoded. This will 
bring less hate to Novarra and better user experience to users. As a 
consequence, it will make Novarra accomplish a lot of what it intended 
to accomplish in the beginning (not all, of course, but that was way too 
ambitious to start with)

Luca

Sean Patterson wrote:
> Regarding "Mandating some respect of some heuristics" [1]:
>
>     <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Specifically call out the heuristics
>     identified by Dom as SHOULDs and separate them from the other
>     heuristics that are not so strongly indicative of intentional mobile
>     content creation
>
> In general, I think this is a good idea, however we should specifically
> call out the situations where the "SHOULD" can be violated.  Here is a
> possible guideline:
>
> Unambiguously mobile sites should not be transformed by a CT proxy
> except:
> *  in cases where the transformation is needed in order to make the site
> useable and/or display properly on the user's device, or
> *  if the user has given explicit permission to the CT proxy to apply
> transformations to mobile sites.
>
> (The definition of "umabiguously mobile" would be the one that Dom
> suggested; i.e., XHTML MP, application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml, etc.)
>
> Why would the user want a CT proxy to apply transformations to mobile
> sites?
> *  The user may want to see a toolbar to make it easier to access CT
> features (e.g., bookmarks, history, etc.).
> *  The user may want links to be rewritten so that all content continues
> to flow through the CT proxy (even if there is no visual change to the
> content).  This avoids the problem of accidentally following a link to a
> regular desktop page that can crash the browser and/or phone.  This is
> especially a problem on mobile versions of blog sites where a lot of the
> links are to desktop content.  For example, when I go directly to
> mobile.osnews.com (no CT proxy) and click on a link in one of the
> entries, it will frequently lock up my phone because the linked-to page
> is too big.  (My phone is a couple of years old and doesn't have a lot
> of memory.)
>
>
> Sean
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0080.html
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 00:16:00 UTC