W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 13 January 2009

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:35:43 +0100
Message-ID: <496E3E8F.4080002@eunet.no>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Tom, no need to go back to the minutes. You have already shown that 
minutes don't mean anything. A few days ago I read the minutes and there 
seemed to be consensus that a single "no-transform" per page would be 
enough. Next stop this got rerversed. So, minutes only have limited 
value. What I read are the decisions taken by the group and the CTG 
itself. Right now the CTG gives enough wiggle room for transcoder 
vendors to transcode where they shouldn't, while still referring to W3C.

Please name more decisions by the WG (apart from the WML one which you 
have referred to multiple times) in which developer requests have been 
accepted. You will find very few, if any. CTG still looks exactly how 
Novarra wants it. Totally tailored around their product.

W3C has created BPWG and DDWG. It would seem logical that CTG demanded 
respect for content authored according to W3C rules. This is not the 
case (or at least, defense is very mild and ambiguous).


Tom Hume wrote:
> It's really quite simple simple. You keep saying "CT always rules 
> against developers". This isn't true. If it was, I'd have noticed and 
> would be complaining.
> I've given you a couple of very specific examples which demonstrate 
> this is not the case. Let me know if you'd like some more, and I'll 
> look through the minutes for you; and in the mean time, please 
> consider refraining from undermining the efforts of those prepared to 
> be a little more constructive than yourself.
> On 14 Jan 2009, at 17:46, Luca Passani wrote:
>> What do you want to prove with this? . Yes, CTG has worked around the 
>> fact that WML is broken by "no-transcode" and yes this was suggested 
>> by developers, but this does not mean that CTWG has consistently  
>> ruled against content owners in 99% of the cases, not coincidentally 
>> you keep referring from this same thing over and over again.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 19:36:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:58 UTC