- From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:58:56 +0100
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
toxic nonsense, Tom. The same kind which got you ejected from WMLProgramming in the end. The fact that a specification mentions (as part of an example!) that some proxies may save some bandwidth (in 1999's Internet) by reducing the size of pictures is *so* distant from what we are seeing today with transcoders (producing derivative work of content they have no rights to, removing essential headers, adding banners and toolbars, breaking HTTPS) that I wonder if you are simply trying to make fun of everyone here. Either that or you deserve to go work for Novarra! Luca Tom Hume wrote: > The concept of transforming proxies (transcoders) is presented in > RFC2616, section 14.9.5 > > On 10 Mar 2009, at 20:25, Luca Passani wrote: > >> I don't disagree. The problem is that this is a consequence of how >> transcoders work. They are intrinsically a hack. The group has been >> desperately trying to present transcoders as some kind of standard, >> but this is like putting lipstick on a pig. A hack they were and a >> hack they remain.
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 22:59:34 UTC