Re: [minutes] Tuesday 13 January 2009

Tom Hume wrote:
>
> Luca
>
> The minutes for 13.01 contain a discussion of the "no-transform 
> applying to referenced resources" suggestion. They state in the header 
> that "on CT, We will not say anything about transforming included 
> resources" - which seems clear to me - YMMV. No decision has been 
> reversed, and the decision taken had full support of developers on the 
> call.

to be clear, I have lost all respect for you because it is clear that 
you are just out to cause confusion, misrepresent what I said and 
represent no-one but yourself with the excuse of representing mobile 
developers. You don't.
In this particular case, I did not talk about "reversed decision". I 
talked about consensus on the idea of a single no-transform which 
*seemed* to be there at one point, while that consensus was gone (I did 
use the term "reversed", but the subject was not "decision") the 
following time.

from the minutes of January 6:

" <jo> [one more PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Content that is an included
   resource of a document treated transparently should be treated
   transparently] "

 From yesterday's minutes:

" <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will not say anything about
   transforming included resources [that was not your best ever idea
   Jo] "

 So, how can you tell me that looking at CTWG/BPWG minutes may 
demonstrate anything at all?

>
> I see no discussion of this issue in previous minutes. If you've read 
> the same minutes twice and drawn two different conclusions, I can't 
> help you.

I have read minutes from two consecutive calls and the group has changed 
its mind.

>
> Skimming through the last 3 sets of minutes from CT calls, I don't see 
> a resolution which was taken without the support of myself or Eduardo, 
> and I don't see one passed that we disagreed with.

I said "there seemed to be consensus". I documented that this was the case.

>
> This would seem to suggest that either he and I are not raising 
> important issues in the first place (which I think we'd say we are), 
> or that your assertion that developers are being ignored is false. The 
> one time where I see Eduardo or myself vote against a proposed 
> resolution (in yesterdays call), the resolution is delayed whilst he 
> can gather more information on the topic - supporting the idea that 
> developers aren't being steamrollered.

I have great esteem for Eduardo. If he says that no-transform should not 
be applied to included resources, I am sure he says that because he 
believes this is the right thing to say. The difference between Eduardo 
and most of the other people here, is that Eduardo has a track record of 
being impartial and looking at the reality, while others (you included) 
have a record of going out of their way to accommodate the needs of Novarra.

>
> No-one's being ignored, but you'll need to read minutes with more care 
> if you wish to comment on the groups activities from an evidential basis.

As I have shown, I have read minutes carefully. The group was on the 
verge of taking a decision in favor of developers on January 6, this has 
been changed in the opposite direction in the following call. It's all 
in the archives.

Of course, whatever you say is an attempt to divert attention from the 
fact that you do not represent developers. If anyone, in the context of 
Content Transformation, can represent developers, then I do.  CTWG did 
not invite me to partecipate, in spite of the fact that I am the editor 
of the Manifesto. The reason is simple: I would seriously push for 
restricting what current CTG is allowing Novarra and VodaUK to get away 
with.

As far as developers being steamrolled go, the following developers have 
requested that the UA string is never spoofed, and your group has 
constantly ignored it:

*Luca Passani*,
WURFL Inventor and WMLProgramming List Owner.

*Miha Valencic*, technical consultant, Mobitel d.d.

*David Harper*, Founder & CEO, Winksite

*Nigel Choi*, Software Engineer, AdMob Inc.

*Chris Abbott*, CTO, DetectRight.com

*C. Enrique Ortiz*, Mobility Blogger and CTO at eZee inc.

*Christophe Lassus*, FlirtyMob, Founder and Director

*James R. McLachlan*, Managing Director, Objective Software Services Ltd.

*Ron Mandel*, Adobe Systems, Mobile and Device Development.

*Alex Kerr*, Managing Director, PhoneThing Ltd,

*Deepak Jaiswal*, co-founder, Pinngit Mobility Solutions, Bangalore.

*Richard Spence*, Director, Bluetrail.

*Tom Thurston*, Vice President, Mobile Animation FC.

*Gareth Reakes*, CTO, We7 Ltd.

*Steven Green*, Technical Director, Oxford Softworks Ltd.

*Jason Sabella*, Senior Software Engineer, Winksite

*Karel De Beule*, Co-Founder, Kimia Solutions

*Raj Singh*, Mobile Developer

*Herval Freire*, CTO, ShotCode.com

*Braxton Woodham*, CTO, Zannel

*Jason Navarro*, Mobile Web developer, Mobiquio

*Paul Manze*, CEO & Founder, EmbedAi Ltd.

*Jose Geraldo Magalhaes*, CTO, wapja.net

*Simon Woodside*, CEO, Semacode Corporation

*Erik Saastad*, Mobile Channel Manager, Dagbladet Medialab

*Håvard Solheim*, Mobile project manager, Edda Digital

*Sylvain Wallez*, CTO, Goojet

*Chris Thompson*, Managing Director, Speak Languages!

*Bengt Welin*, Head of Technology and Production, Mobiento, Sweden

	*Ray Anderson*, CEO, Bango plc.

*Barbara Ballard*, President, Little Springs Design

*Pedro Barros José*, Managing Director, Mdatalogic Ltd.

*Julio Rabadán González*, Founder, Somms Multimedia Solutions.

*Paul Poutanen*, CEO, Mob4Hire Inc.

*Andrea Trento*, Founder & CEO, Interpreting.it

*Jan Michael Hess*, CEO, Mobile Economy GmbH

*Brian Dally*, Principal, Phone People Software & Strategy Partners

*Giles Payne*, Co-founder, Telepathix.net

*Salvador Gonzalez*, Founder & Business development, entumovil.net

*Gabriel Palomino*, Mobile Industry Consultant, Mobile Media Consult

*August Z. Flatby*, Founder, Apparat AS

*Ed Pimentel*, Founder, AgileCO

*Francisco Velázquez*, IT Director, Froggie

*Raul Jimenez*, Mobile Developer, Spanish Adobe User Group

*Juan Nin*, General Manager of Software Development, 3Cinteractive

*Richard Yates*, Mobile Web Strategist, ARYates Consulting, LLC

*Sayuti Chow*, Mobile VAS Developer, PT Metadome Mobitech

*David Walton*, Mobile Developer

*Geoff Ballinger*, CTO, Mixipix Ltd.

*Pål Bråtelund*, Head of Mobile, VG Mobil

*Tomislav Car*, CEO, Infinum Ltd.

*Anton Bar*, Chief Gheek, http://G.ho.st

	*Fabrizio Capobianco*, CEO, Funambol

*Dev Gandhi*, CEO, NEXAGE / MyCorner.com

*Jon Arne Sæterås*, Head of Product Development, Mobiletech AS

*Morten Hjerde*, Senior Interaction Designer,mBricks AS.

*Jose Maria Martinez Burgos, 'hafo'*, CEO & Founder, Animatu

*Kirk Bateman*, Manging Director, Synaptic Technologies Limited

*Mikael Krogius*, Founder & CEO, Winwap Technologies

*Jason Delport*, Developer and co-founder, Paxmodept

*Peter J. Cranstone*, CEO, 5o9, Inc.

*Dennis Bournique*, mobile blogger, wapreview.com

*Manuel Groeneweg*, Owner, Bor3d

*Mat Williams*, CTO, Reporo Ltd.

*Alessandro Pace*, FlashLite Development, Biskero.org

*Ryan Unger*, Partner and Creative Director, Punchkick Interactive

*Shaun Zelber*, Co-Founder TexoMobile Inc.

*Jakub Danilewicz*, Alembik Project Architect, Kimia Solutions.

*Elias Giannopoulos*, Founder & IT Manager, Sports.comm ltd

*Benno Bartels*, Co-Founder / Developer, insertEFFECT - Web Mobile 
Specialists

*Julien Menard*, CTO, SBW Paris

*Farez Rahman*, Developer and Founder, Redkey Digital Ltd.

*Mark Hillsdon*, CEO, Barefoot Software Inc.

*Roberto Pinia*, Business Development Manager, Aspiro AS

*Muntasir Mamun Joarder*, Data Service Specialist, AKTEL

	*Marco Argenti*, Managing Director, Dada.net

*Mike Rowehl*, Founder, Mowser Inc.

*Neil Osman*, CEO, WW3 (web and mobile web development)

*Alex Tur*, Co-founder and CEO, Netsoul, LLC

*Letizia Jaccheri*,
Professor in Software Engineering,
Department of Computer and Information Science,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology

*Robert Oberhofer*, Phd, Mobile Consultant and Co-Founder JotInfo Inc.

*Kanwar Dhaliwal*, Mobile Consultant

*Terren Suydam*, Head of Mobile Development, SingleClick Systems

*Adriano Fonseca*, Partner and Co-Founder, TopSolutions.pt

*Nihan Sin*, Mobile Web Developer

*Michael Dykman*, Distributed System Architect and Developer.

*Alexandru Stanciu*, Co-Founder, StarTech.ro

*Michael Maguire*, Founder & CTO, Blue Whale Systems Ltd

*Gabriel Balogh*, Mobile Developer, MOBIcomp

*Scott Beaumont*, Co-Founder, Mippin.com

*Steve Kamerman*, Director of IT / Co-Founder, Tera Technologies Inc

*Alfredo Pinkus*, Applications Manager, CycleLogic

*Ian Homer*, Co-Founder, Bemoko

*Tim Dedischew*, Founder, MobileLeap Inc.

*Alex Matthews*, Technical Director, Marvellous.

*Michael Stone*, CEO, Amethon Solutions Pty Ltd

*B. Vervoort*, Co-Founder & Mobile Developer, InMovil Media Europa

*Manuel Dominguez Sarmiento*, General Director, Renxo


To refresh your memory, you may want to read the comments about 
UA-spoofing from a lot of those developers here in the signature section:

http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/


*Ronan Mandel*, Adobe Systems, Mobile and Device Development Support: 
"The 'mobile web' is clearly in a nascent and growing state. The desire 
to expose as much of the web to mobile devices is an admirable goal on 
the part of Vodafone, however their short sighted decision in hiding the 
real user-agent is both unnecessary and counter productive. Services 
that provide access to non-mobile specific content have no reason to 
break existing, well formed, well considered, mobile designed content. 
It is difficult to foresee a future where being able to identify the 
exact device accessing ones site looses its value. Even under the 
ultimate 'one web' vision of the W3C, user-agent detection remains a 
fundamental tool for content developers. One need only look to the 
promises of the wonderful web experience on the iPhone, and it becomes 
abundantly clear that while regular web content works better than on any 
other mobile device on the market today, mobile specific content sings. 
Authors should be allowed to identify what device is accessing their site.
The suggestion on the part of Vodafone that mobile specific sites get 
'white listed' in order to receive user-agent information is simply 
another barrier to entry that hinders the development of mobile 
specific, highly usable content. What would have happened on the web as 
a whole if every site that wanted to get information about if the user 
was running Netscape or IE had to first register with every ISP first? 
As crazy at it sounds, this is exactly what Vodafone is expecting of 
content providers. "

*Barbara Ballard*, President, Little Springs Design, Author of 
"Designing the Mobile User Experience", Wiley, April 2007: "Stripping 
out user agents is a critical step backwards for the mobile web, as it 
makes the assumption that no site is mobile-optimized."

*James R. McLachlan*,Managing Director, Objective Software Services 
Ltd.: "Vodafone UK is clearly engaged in anti-competitive behaviour. 
They have made technical changes to their network that deliberately 
damage and hinder the mobile content sites of their competition. They 
are then cynically and sickeningly hiding behind the political 
weasel-words and distorted statistics to try to justify this position.
There are NO good technical reasons for hiding the User-Agent, but there 
are quite a few political ones that will mean that if they manage to win 
this argument, other mobile content providers will forever be beholden 
to them.
Finding work-arounds is NOT an acceptable way forward because this would 
inevitably lead to further (and different) work-arounds for other 
operators. Also, as soon as anybody has a good and effective 
work-around, they will just find another reason to modify how their 
'internal systems' work."

*Richard Spenser*, www.bluetrail.co.uk: "Would just like to add my 
support to you rants complaints re the vodafone debacle. I am sat here 
trying to get my WALL based download site working on the vodafone net 
again. One of my clients was the first to notice so I am bit pissed off 
to be honest. I have asked to whitelisted but it dosn't seem to work at 
the moment.Please feel free to publish my name and company. Keep up the 
good work!!"

*David Harper*, Founder, Winksite: "Vodafone's actions thwart the 
efforts of companies in the mobile ecosystem who set out to provide a 
customized mobile presentation of their services, hurt these companies 
financially, and is counter to the advancements facilitated by groups 
such as the W3C and dotMobi."

*Andre van den Heever*, Mobile Apps Dev ,8 years experience in the UK, 
USA and South Africa: "The useragent string is a fundamental part of our 
industry's back bone and is at the heart of each and every consumer 
oriented mobile product all over the world. Vodafone UK is acting 
criminally in high jacking this crucial piece of information from 
companies that are not English or part of the Vodafone UK Premier 
partner list. To put it in a more management type terminology . if our 
sysadmin implemented this in our company without telling anyone (like 
Vodafone did to us 3rd party companies and the rest of the world) he 
would have been fired the next day.
They should change their slogan to "The Internet is now Mobile - well 
our site is . but I don't know about everyone else!"

*Nigel Choi*, Software Engineer, AdMob: "Having years of experience 
developing mobile web content, I've seen lots of abuses and screw-ups by 
carriers. But none so egregious as what Vodafone and Novarra is doing to 
the User-Agent HTTP header. Not only are they breaking the HTTP 
standard, but they are at the same time influencing W3C to make their 
practice a Standards Recommendation. Worse, they are acting as if the 
standard exists. Unless they realize their mistakes and change, we have 
no choice but to call it an anti-competitive practice. We need to pursue 
the matter as such, including all the parties in W3C that are privy to 
Vodafone's true intentions and doing their bidding for them. Net 
Neutrality is completely destroyed in this. Imagine the massive public 
outcry if this were done by a broadband internet provider."

*Christophe Lassus*, FlirtyMob.com CEO and Founder: "I run FlirtyMob a 
mobile chatroom which offers a much better user experience than the 
equivalent service Vodafone UK sell on their portal.
Content adaptation is a legitimate concern for Vodafone UK but there is 
absolutely NO technical reason to remove the user-agent string. Hence, I 
am forced to believe that part of their objective is to damage 
competitors' mobile services, to make their own offering more appealing.
I completely support your crusade to stop Vodafone's totally 
unacceptable anti-competitive behaviour.
Thank you for your dedication to promoting the cause of a truely open 
Mobile Internet and your unvaluable contribution to the Mobile community."

*Martin Kindler*,CEO cityExperience.net, Berlin, Germany: "I do 
absolutely support your (our) quest against Vodafone. Although my 
company is currently not active in the UK market, you may add my 
signature and company name (they might make the same error in other 
markets)"

*Andy Moore*, Director and Co-Founder, Palace Marketing Ltd - 
http://palacemarketing.mobi/ : "Our main site is white listed but I 
agree what they're doing goes against the efforts of the mobile 
development community and best practices.
They've invested in mTLD and created Beta Vine so can justify saying 
they support developers and are pushing for standards, but really.... 
It's hypocritical, a screw-up of monumental proportions and a slap in 
the face for the thousands of developers who've helped them build their 
data revenues"

*Rich Holdsworth*, CTO at Wapple.net:"We are disgusted at Vodafone's 
actions and we have been fighting this since the whole thing started 
happening. I have also attached a document that I wrote that was 
published in the press and online. Please feel free to use it in part or 
as a whole as you see fit. All I would ask is that you include a 
clickable URL alongside any quotes.
http://go.wapple.net/press-releases/33/vodafone-misses-the-point-of-the-mobile-internet.htm 

The position we find ourselves in is one where we simply do not have the 
resource to fight this beyond speaking out as loudly as possible."

*Markus Lind*, software engineer and researcher at YellowMap: "By this 
approach Vodafone destroys the work of thousands developers around the 
globe. There is no reason to break with the basics/standards mobile 
developers rely on for now around 8 years"

*Helen Keegan*, MD, BeepMarketing:"I'm not a developer but even I can 
see the issue here and it is unacceptable. You have my support."

*Tony Rose*, President and Co-founder Drop In Media, LLC, 
www.dropinmedia.com: "Dear Vodafone,Please return the UAProf string to 
the device header. This is part of a standard in web development, that 
many innovators have come to depend on in order to build solutions that 
are tailored to each unique device capability. This ensures that the end 
user will get an optimized experience on their device no matter what 
device they choose. Thank you".

*Vic Berggren*,Mobile Marketing Watch, www.mobilemarketingwatch.com: 
"The irony is that there's a banner on the Vodafone home page that reads 
'Find Out How To Work Smarter', guess they didn't read that huh?"

*Dennis Bournique*,WapReview.com, http://wapreview.com/blog/?p=400 : 
"Vodafone is clearly wrong. As defined by the W3C, the purpose of the 
User-Agent header is to identify the originating browser. More 
importantly Vodafone is breaking a long established de-facto standard in 
mobile-web development that the User-Agent is the best way to identify a 
particular handset for the purpose of optimizing content delivery. 
Vodafone is breaking the mobile web. As the second largest mobile 
carrier in the world they have enormous power and are setting a 
dangerous precedent. If you are a mobile developer or user who wants to 
see quality content please let your voice be heard."

*Ran Rubinstein*, VP Operations, Targetize Mobile Web : "Vodafone's new 
policy of removing the user agent is terrible, and pulls the rug under 
years of development. Even worse is the content adaptation mechanism. 
What will happen to java midlets/flash lite apps that use HTTP as a 
means of communications with servers? With ad-sponsored sites, can 
Novarra decide to strip the ads from my site or move them to the second 
page because their UI experts feel they are not fit for mobile?
The solution should be an opt-in for sites that feel happy with 
Novarra's site modifier, not a blanket move of all the web through their 
modifier. Vodafone is strong enough to attract many webmasters that are 
looking for the easy way into mobile phones. "

*Dean Maslic*,Founder, Mobilised Pty Ltd, http://mobilised.net : "I 
completely support your point of view and those of other mobile 
developers. I find it outrageous that they decided to hi-jack the UA 
string for no obvious technical or half-decent business reason - their 
marketing bull$hit to provide a 'PC experience on their phones' is a 
complete joke. Users will be turned away from off-deck browsing which 
goes against what their are marketing. They should let the mobile-site 
developers deliver the most appropriate content for their device without 
intervention(ie. DON'T HACK THE USER-AGENT header) and only transcode if 
no mobile-optimised content is found. Vodafone should use the growing 
number of mobile-adapted sites to their advantage and promote their use 
not work against them by taking the most important piece of user 
information away from them."

*Richard Taylor*, CEO, Teazel Limited UK : "Just a quick note to say 
Teazel supports fully you in the Vodafone discussion. The User-Agent 
must be preserved."

*Kirk Bateman*, Managing Director, Synaptic Technologies Limited: "I'd 
like to add my agreement with you about the voda user-agent hijacking. 
It also makes handset stats based on the user agent extremely painful as 
for voda we specifically have to check for their 
HTTP_X_DEVICE_USER_AGENT header and ignore the desktop useragent entry..."

*Alex Kerr*, Managing Director, PhoneThing Ltd, www.phonething.com: 
"Non-developers might think this whole thing is simply a difference of 
opinion about how best to implement some obscure technical feature. It's 
not - it's a straight blocking of a heavily relied upon, globally 
accepted internet standard that potentially affects many many companies 
offering mobile content, and millions of consumers. It is worth fighting 
because if Vodafone succeed here, other telcos elsewhere will think they 
can get away with it too. Think how important PC-based web access is 
today, and the fact that this same "User Agent" info is often used to 
ensure the correct website code is delivered to a user's browser 
(browsers such as IE ignore standards and break websites so people have 
to employ workarounds - and that requires knowing the browser the user 
is using). Imagine the fuss if that got blocked on your home broadband, 
by BT say, and loads of websites started breaking - this is the scenario 
that Vodafone have implemented on mobile for the last several months - 
except it's worse because the "User Agent" info is more critical and 
relied upon more heavily"

*Peter Buick*, K2kGroup.com : "We represent several publishing houses 
with optimised mobile content. We are greatly concerned that Vodafone 
are trying to play mobile God and interfere with an established 
standard. Mangling an adopted protocol is not beneficial for anyone, 
including Vodafone clients. We go to great expense to provide content 
optimised at source for each device and a declared device identity is 
seminal to any such methodology. Being forced to rely on some 
re-purposing engine is not a satisfactory user experience. We will be 
forced to ignore Vodafone as a viable mobile platform and concentrate on 
the remaining 72% of the market, unless this is remedied. And that would 
be of no benefit to anyone. My full response with a more reasoned 
argument is available at http://www.MarketingChaps.com"

*Nathan Pitman*, Managing Director, Nine Four Ltd: "I just thought I'd 
drop you an email to let you know that I'm a UK vodafone business 
customer and I have been using my Nokia N73 to connect my MacBook to the 
web whilst on the road via a Bluetooth connection. I've noticed however 
that when I'm browsing the web via the 3G connection on my phone that 
images in web pages are of a much lower quality, GIF files are heavily 
dithered and JPGs show many compression artifacts. I can only assume 
that this is another side effect of the proxy which Vodafone are using, 
most probably to reduce the amount of data they return to the handset I 
suspect but never the less it's hardly an ideal solution when it means 
that the user agent string is modified.
It would be interesting to know how pages are returned by Vodafone if 
you subscribe to their £25 a month mobile broadband service which 
requires that you plug a Vodafone USB modem into your laptop. I suspect 
this is no more than a 3G modem and an excuse to charge more when in 
reality you can download third party drivers that let you do the same 
via your handset and existing monthly contract."

*Dev Gandhi*, CEO, NEXAGE / MyCorner.com: "I am sure Vodafone will 
correct their mistake soon as it's affecting ours and everyone's 
service. We pride ourselves in providing the most advanced mobile video 
social networking platform and depend on device, country and carrier 
system detection via the UA header information. Most content providers 
will be affected in near terms, but Vodafone has the most to loose as 
mobile users recognize their bad mobile web experience is due to 
Vodafone and start to change service providers. Vodafone has already 
started to loose their brand luster among the developer community, 
especially if they don't act fast."

*Aidan Gallagher*, Lead Software Engineer, EyeSpyFX : "Vodafone's 
decision to corrupt the Header information completely undermines all our 
work in this area. We have a java app that can view our live webcam 
services. Not only do we send a specific app based on the User-Agent 
analyzed by the excellent WURFL. The app carries out plain text and 
image communication with our server that is now being transcoded into a 
full xhtml page which breaks all our code. I will now have to parse our 
data out of their page which is unnecessary extra work for the java app. 
This heavy handed approach from Vodafone is typical of so many big 
companies."

*Lars Lindbäck*, Lead R&D Engineer, www.mobizoft.com, "Mobizoft would 
like to support the initiative against the Vodafone/Novarra solution. 
The User-Agent and UAProf headers are de facto standards and should not 
be tampered with. By not sending the correct User-Agent a content 
provider cannot adapt the content to the phone (scaling images, setting 
fontsize, selecting videoformat etc.). It is up to the content provider 
to decide how the mobile page should display, not Vodafone. Vodafone is 
actually preventing quality mobile content to reach the end users."

*Duncan Hallas*, Consultant, "Vodafone UK has made countless millions 
over the past 8 years I have worked in the UK mobile industry in 
increased data charges, messaging and premium revenues from exactly 
those SMEs that it now seeks to alienate. Let's be clear the cost of 
development is directly associated to keeping the bedrock standards as 
simple as possible. This kind of change only serves to prevent the 
innovation that has made the UK market the hotbed of wireless 
entrepreneurs; who have endlessly broken new ground here which has 
largely been to the mobile operators benefit. I fully support the 
messages here."

*Thomas Quintana*, Chief Technology Officer, Adtxt Mobile, LLC. "A 
heterogeneous ecosystem such as the internet is founded on standards. In 
layman's terms due to the myriad of devices and software platforms with 
access to the internet the existence of such a network is only possible 
if set standards are in place. Vodafone's decision lacks the rationale 
of better judgment and makes me question the ability of the company to 
make ethical decisions. I would like to conclude with the definition of 
ethical egoism and a quote from Benjamin Franklin.:

/Ethical Egoism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that 
action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing 
the action.
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power./"

*Ruud Kenter*, TMG, "Thank you very much Vodafone!, Thank you for 
turning back the clock by 10 years on the mobile internet. Thanks for 
destroying all the efforts and hard labour put in content adaptation. 
Who needs standards, right? You totally missed the point of the mobile 
internet. On a personal note, my subscription ends this august, you just 
lost a customer."

*Chris Thompson*, Managing Director, Speak Languages! "What Vodafone has 
done in removing the original user_agent header is pretty shameful -- a 
clear abuse of their dominant position and damaging for the internet as 
a whole. So I wholeheartedly support your campaign."


Luca

>
> Tom
>
> On 14 Jan 2009, at 19:35, Luca Passani wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>