- From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:05:33 +0000
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
You sure about that, Luca? The proposal was put up by Jo, and it was Eduardo and myself who argued against it, setting out the points below - not transcoder vendors. I can't speak for Eduardo, but I was wearing my tin-foil hat throughout the call to avoid any interference the transcoding industry might exert on my thinking. Tom On 14 Jan 2009, at 14:49, Luca Passani wrote: > > > yet another decision from W3C which goes in the direction of helping > transcoder vendors transcode more, and against the interest of > content owners who want to protect their content from transcoders. > Congratulations. > > Luca > > Tom Hume wrote: >> >> Luca >> >> Look from the section "Included resources of a non transformed >> resource should not be transformed" downwards in the minutes. >> >> In short order we came up with a number of reasons why this wasn't >> as attractive an idea as it originally seemed, and voted against it: >> >> - resources may not be referenced from markup at all >> - this would shift HTTP from a request/response model to a document/ >> sub-documents model >> - dependencies on sub-documents may be recursive >> - content providers may wish to have documents transformed, but >> images not transformed >> >> 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, 14 January 2009 15:06:12 UTC