Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [wmlprogramming] [Fwd: Re: Transcoders and copyright]

Expand Messages
  • Luca Passani
    ... all of the things you mention are things that Novarra was already doing with the VFUK installation, so how can you say that the CTG is demanding anything.
    Message 1 of 75 , Nov 30, 2008
      > I can't see how any of these benefit transcoder vendors. They're all
      > additional responsibilities placed upon them, and each one benefits
      >developers.

      all of the things you mention are things that Novarra was already doing
      with the VFUK installation, so how can you say that the CTG is demanding
      anything. Secondly, they are also part of the Manifesto, which also
      demands UA preservation while the CTG doesn't.
      Thirdly, you have answered a totally unrelated question which nobody
      asked. I observed how all the CTG ruling consistently went against what
      developers had suggested, and you have failed to answer that.
      Is this a cheap attempt to irritate me? what if rather than calling you
      a morron, I simply eject you from WMLProgramming?

      Luca


      Tom Hume wrote:
      > On 30 Nov 2008, at 12:36, Luca Passani wrote:
      >
      >
      >>> Whenever there was a decision which could go in the direction of
      >>>
      >> what
      >>
      >>> developers and content owners indicate, the outcome has consistently
      >>> gone in the opposite directions because of one of the following:
      >>> - this would be new technology
      >>> - this would disrupt what already exists in the wild
      >>> - what already existed in the wild was not correct according to
      >>>
      >> some W3C
      >>
      >>> standard
      >>> basically, developers always lose.
      >>>
      >> isn't this the well documented reality?
      >>
      >>
      > I don't think so. Post-CTG transcoders have a number of
      > responsibilities they didn't have before, and that weren't demanded of
      > them by the Manifesto. I shan't list them all (go read the document if
      > you'd like to see them), but a few include:
      >
      > 1. Proxies must act as though a no-transform directive is present
      > (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request) unless they are able
      > positively to determine that the user agent is a Web browser (section
      > 4.1.3) - so anything that isn't a web browser should be left well alone
      >
      > 2. Proxies must, on receipt of an indication from a Web site that it
      > offers alternative representations inform the user of that and allow
      > them to select an alternative representation. (section 4.1.5.3) - so
      > if there's a mobile version, it must be offered to users.
      >
      > 3. When forwarding an HTTP request with altered HTTP headers proxies
      > must include in the request copies of the unaltered header values in
      > the form "X-Device-"<original header name> (section 4.1.5.5) - thus
      > providing a standard place to find these headers, something which
      > might tidy up the current messy situation where every proxy uses a
      > different standard.
      >
      > 4. Proxies must include a Via header (section 4.1.6) - thus alerting
      > web servers of their presence
      >
      > etc etc.
      >
      > I can't see how any of these benefit transcoder vendors. They're all
      > additional responsibilities placed upon them, and each one benefits
      > developers.
      >
    • Luca Passani
      ... The Manifesto represents the consensus. CTG only represents the position of one transcoder vendor (well, two with Google). Operators like the Manifesto
      Message 75 of 75 , Dec 5, 2008
        Tom Hume wrote:
        > Julio
        >
        > If you feel CTG is doomed, then it's probably best for you to ignore
        > it and do nothing. Why bother wasting your time on something you don't
        > believe will do any good? Leave that to those of us who think it's
        > worthwhile :)
        >
        > It's certainly harder to reach consensus between transcoder vendors,
        > operators, developers and others than it is to represent just one of
        > those positions in a document. But I don't think that makes it
        > worthless.
        >

        The Manifesto represents the consensus. CTG only represents the position
        of one transcoder vendor (well, two with Google).

        Operators like the Manifesto too, and they are now convinced that they
        need to get away from the embarassing situation that believing Novarra
        has placed some of them into.

        Finally, let's stop this here, unless you have something new to add to
        whatever has been said in the past two months about CTG vs Manifesto. I
        have other things to do.

        Luca
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.