I've just read these guidelines. Beyond any personal grievance you may
have with the W3C or individuals there, which bit of this document do
you find so offensive? I've not been involved with writing them, but
they seem pretty sensible to me.

The requirements outlined in section 1.4 seems to exactly match what
you've been after: the ability for either user agents or content
servers to indicate that content should not be transcoded.

The document states that the "no-transform" Cache-control header
should be respected; HTTP headers shouldn't be modified (in all but a
few specific circumstances); and proxies shouldn't do duplicate
requests. The heuristics the document outlines for identifying mobile
content are very close, if not identical, to those the development
community have been requesting.

All this seems sensible and seems to match closely with much of the
content of your "manifesto". Can you outline the points of difference
for us please?

On 2 Aug 2008, at 10:00, Luca Passani wrote:

>
> People, the W3C is moving ahead with their Content Transformation
> Guidelines, which, as you may know, I have not much respect for: the
> fact that developers (the ones impacted by those stupid transcoders)
> were not invited to the W3C table is a fundamental flaw in the whole
> process. This is obviously reflected in the useless set of rules W3C
> has
> pulled together here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
>
> I know for a fact that the participants in the working group are very
> aware of the rules in the Manifesto, but of course, they preferred to
> stick their heads under the sand (and W3C is OK with this. The only
> fucking thing that matters to them is the stupid consensus among those
> who have paid to sit at the W3C table. How can they hope to ever get
> any
> credibility among developers? Fuckers! their stupid spec smells
> fucking
> novarra shit all over the place...)
>
> Anyway, what about sending some comments to W3C? detailed comments
> would
> be preferable, but something like "do not allow to change the User-
> Agent
> string" would do too.
> If you feel strongly about transcoding (and I know many of you, do),
> you
> can do it directly by sending comments here:
>
> public-bpwg-comments@...
>
> if you have ideas, but you would like to validate them with me and the
> rest of the community, feel free to use this forum to fine-tune your
> message before you send it to W3C.
>
> W3C has shown the ability to discard comments coming from those who
> don't pay W3C membership. Asking for public comments is just a stupid
> fig leaf. But let's make their life harder at least. Internet archives
> will speak on behalf of developers for the rest of times.
>
> Thanks
>
> Luca
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Content Transformation Guidelines published as Last Call
> Working Draft
> Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:36:28 +0000
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The Content Transformation Guidelines have just been published as a
> Last
> Call Working Draft:
> This document provides guidance to content transformation
> proxies and content providers as to how inter-work when
> delivering Web content.
>
> This is a Last Call Working Draft of Content Transformation
> Guidelines 1.0, expected to become a W3C Recommendation. The W3C
> Membership and other interested parties are invited to review
> the document and send comments to public-bpwg-comments@...
> (with public archive) through 16 September 2008.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
>
> Regards,
>
> Dom
>
>
>

--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom.Hume@...
t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]