As a tech lead if the company who is #1 content seller in France:
there is a very very simple option and I don't understand why nobody thought of it. No worry with fake useragents, strange patterns of URLs, page sizes of this kind of stuff. Mobile web developers are adults and code their pages in cHTML, WML or XHTML-MP.
So, any site that will sent one of theses DTDs in its declaration would be considered coded for mobiles. (anyway anybody trying to write a site for mobile in HTML would be silly, since it has much much more probability to fail on mid end handsets).
Any other site would be transcoded. That's it.
We go from 10s of complex rules with exclusions to only one : if you want to code a mobile site, use a mobile markup. That's it.
What do you think ?
Sean, operators and reformatter vendors break the mobile web from one day to the next and what's yours and W3C's answer? a spec that tells developer how to change their previously working application, while crossing their fingers and hope that the spec W3C has created gets adopted.
Even before I go into the details of why W3C's spec is way too weak, this approach is so tragically wrong even when it comes to the underlying spirit!
How can you demand that developers change their applications when someone else has broken them without justification?
No. W3C has failed to provide the answer. The legitimate response should be: get those transcoders out of the way now! only opt-in transcoders should be allowed.
Now, the Manifesto goes out of its way to establish rules which will, at least, allow those "enforced reformatters" and the ecosystem to co-exist. You should be thanking the developer community for showing the industry the way, and what's your reaction? you call the manifesto "misguided".
Thanks for you comment. I think we are all moving in the direction of a workable compromise. I agree that a confrontational tone is counter productive.
Regarding whitelisting based on domain name, sure it's a bit of a kludge, but it will have the immediate effect of stopping the transcoding of sites that match the pattern where as waiting for every mobile site in the world to add a no-transform header will take years.
Google GWT, by the way, is a great service and I have no issue with the way it works currently. It's perfectly acceptable for an opt-in service like GWT to send its own User Agent. I only opject to content reformatting proxies which unilaterly and withourt user consent inpose themself between browser and mobile site and operate in such a way as to break existing mobile sites and services.
there is a very very simple option and I don't understand why nobody thought of it. No worry with fake useragents, strange patterns of URLs, page sizes of this kind of stuff. Mobile web developers are adults and code their pages in cHTML, WML or XHTML-MP.
So, any site that will sent one of theses DTDs in its declaration would be considered coded for mobiles. (anyway anybody trying to write a site for mobile in HTML would be silly, since it has much much more probability to fail on mid end handsets).
Any other site would be transcoded. That's it.
We go from 10s of complex rules with exclusions to only one : if you want to code a mobile site, use a mobile markup. That's it.
What do you think ?
Even before I go into the details of why W3C's spec is way too weak, this approach is so tragically wrong even when it comes to the underlying spirit!
How can you demand that developers change their applications when someone else has broken them without justification?
No. W3C has failed to provide the answer. The legitimate response should be: get those transcoders out of the way now! only opt-in transcoders should be allowed.
Now, the Manifesto goes out of its way to establish rules which will, at least, allow those "enforced reformatters" and the ecosystem to co-exist. You should be thanking the developer community for showing the industry the way, and what's your reaction? you call the manifesto "misguided".
you are misguided.
Luca
Thanks for you comment. I think we are all moving in the direction of a workable compromise. I agree that a confrontational tone is counter productive.
Regarding whitelisting based on domain name, sure it's a bit of a kludge, but it will have the immediate effect of stopping the transcoding of sites that match the pattern where as waiting for every mobile site in the world to add a no-transform header will take years.
Google GWT, by the way, is a great service and I have no issue with the way it works currently. It's perfectly acceptable for an opt-in service like GWT to send its own User Agent. I only opject to content reformatting proxies which unilaterly and withourt user consent inpose themself between browser and mobile site and operate in such a way as to break existing mobile sites and services.