[backstage] Programmes Ontology
The first draft of the Programmes Ontology is now online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/programmes It's taken from a d2r mapping of the bbc.co.uk/programmes database which in turn is based on PIPs (which in turn also powers iplayer) For now it's just the ontology but we're planning to make the rdf data linked and available soon together with a sparql endpoint (depending on legalities). We'll be at the semantic barcamp (http://barcamp.org/SemanticCampLondon) if you have questions / wanna see some semantic "mashups" It's very early stages and only represents a weeks work so there are caveats: - we don't know how applicable it is to other broadcasters - it's taken from a branch of /programmes from last august/september so doesn't include the ondemand data (iplayer stuff). We'll correct that when we find the time - it's only really been seen by a dozen people so hasn't been commented on - please do All the hard/clever work was done by Yves Raimond and i have to say thank you to Sophie Walpole who found the money to do this work when many people would have said "eh?"
Re: [backstage] Dirac Pro v1.0.0, SMPTE VC-2
Hardware manufacturers are notorious for preferring open MPEG, SMPTE, ITU standards over proprietary codecs (other than their own). I saw a presentation at SATIS in Paris a few years ago which listed the main PC codecs (including Theora) and then called MPEG "the only standards that matter". This argument still holds up: out of the three historical players who have been battling these past 15 years or so, the only reliable format across players all this time was and is... MPEG-1. From 1992! I'm not sure "most people who think of Dirac" number more than a handful though. In the absence of any press communication, this is one of those quiet events which could have enormous impact. Sean On Jan 24, 2008 11:39 PM, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sean DALY wrote: > > I think this is fabulous news. Congratulations to all who worked on it. > > > > A patent-unencumbered (say that 10x fast) royalty-free codec is > > something the world needs. > > > > So what if Microsoft doesn't support it, they don't support H.264 or > > AAC either (XBox & Zune aside) and look where that got iTunes. > > It is indeed fabulous news, but people should bear in mind that Dirac > Pro / VC2 is not the codec that most people think of as "Dirac". It > lacks motion-compensation, which is unnecessary for its intended use, > but which is needed to make it competitive with widely-adopted > alternatives such as WM9 and h.264. > > Dirac Pro is being marketed in hardware form as a way of squeezing HD > video down relatively low-bandwidth cables, such as the SDI cables > installed in many TV studios for standard definition signals - see > http://www.numediatechnology.com/products.html for details. > > http://dirac.sourceforge.net/specification.html gives more details, > including the specifications of the two codecs. > > S > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
Thanks for the response On 24/01/2008, Martin Deutsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2008 3:31 PM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > "broadcasters - don't publish the exact start times of programmes > anywhere", > > which is not quite > > Can I assume the word missing from the end of your sentence was "true"? > > If you can show me a broadcast schedule for a major channel which > publicly publishes, in advance, the exact start times of their > programmes (eg Never Better, Tonight at 2202 on BBC Two), then I'll > gladly eat a copy of the Radio Times[1]. I have already said that the BBC Radio 4 schedule is to the minute. [...] > > > > In summary: blame Microsoft, not the BBC. > > > (Or at least, if you're going to blame the BBC, you may as well also > > > direct some ire at Red Bee Media, their listings subsiduary BDS, ITV > > > Network Centre, Channel 4, Sky, etc, etc.) > > > > I'm not trying to BLAME anyone here, I'm trying to find out where the > EPG > > information gets nobbled and make an attempt to get some to "acknowledge > > mistakes" and provide "accuracy" in the data. > > > > If I can get a signed letter from someone at the BBC saying that it's > > Microsoft's fault, then I can go an staple it to the "Memorandum of > > Understanding" and get MS to sort it out. > > It's not being nobbled. The information you want isn't out there. It > may exist internally, but it's not for public consumption. The > standard method[2] is to get billed timings from the schedule in > advance, and then look for when that event's 'running' in the EIT. > From what you've said so far, Microsoft have chosen to do it a > different way in Media Center. Of course the information exists internally! Saying that something that the BBC, which is funded by a universal tax on the public, which is a PUBLIC service broadcasters cannot provide said public with any information is quite frankly appalling. Yes, Microsoft have chosen to assume that the schedule information they get is accurate. If someone at the BBC wishes to force them to rewrite their BDA, which they use in every country in the world, to make it more UK-centric, I would be happy about that. I know everyone here likes having a go at Microsoft, but it's the BBC that has a Memoramdum of Understanding, so I probably should be someone in the BBC's job to say "that EPG information we provide you with is inaccurate, please redesign your broadcast architecture". I suspect the problem lies with the fact that the MS record facility is a 'file copy' from the source to the hard drive without any decoding or interpretation of the data. > As far as I can tell with the Media Center, the DVB-T reception (or DVB-S > as > > an alternative) is too abstracted from the PVR functions. It took quite > a > > lot of effort to get them to recognise the damn radio stations! > > ...so do you think the broadcasters should try to make up for your > media player's shortcomings? Or should Microsoft perhaps make their > software more aware of the way things are done around here? Both. There are not incompatible. Remember that the MS system works with DVB-T, DVB-S and also can work with an external set-top box and a analogue input. So, reading the DVB streams better would work with digital data, but not with an external decoder. - martin > > > [1] Other listings magazines are available. > [2] cf. the 'digital tick' specs to which I referred in an earlier > message. > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
Brian, It seems to me that one of the reasons this thread is going on so long is that many of the people in it share a belief which you don't - and to them it seems so obvious that they haven't bothered to state it explicitly. Here is what I believe is the major axiom of contention: "It is impossible to run a broadcast channel precisely to schedule" It seems to me that Brian's suggestions make sense if this axiom turns out to be false. Similarly it seems to me that everyone else's defence of the status quo is a description of an engineering work-around designed to compensate for the problems caused by this axiom holding true. Martin and Brian batted back and forth: > > If you can show me a broadcast schedule for a major channel which > > publicly publishes, in advance, the exact start times of their > > programmes (eg Never Better, Tonight at 2202 on BBC Two), then I'll > > gladly eat a copy of the Radio Times[1]. > I have already said that the BBC Radio 4 schedule is to the minute. I suspect that Martin's response might well be "Ok - but they don't actually stick to that schedule". Indeed Steve has already said: > I mean, think how often Radio 4 presenters crash the pips. This is because they're trying their damndest to stick to a schedule that's too tight. So they come in late on a regular basis. Just like Southern Trains, in fact. There are a number of possible solutions to this problem. The one that seems to have been universally adopted by UK TV networks is to publish a fuzzy timetable. One that's accurate to about 5 minutes. They can aim internally for minute-accuracy, but they know they won't get it. This is OK, because they didn't promise minute-accuracy to the world - only 5-minute accuracy. This is comparable to the standard practice when making Hi-Fi equipment. If you build an amp that can cope with an input range of between x and y (before it blows up), then you'll write on the box that it can cope with between x+delta and y-delta. That way there's some tolerance for when things go wrong. If you want to make an FOI request for the timetable everyone aims at internally, then I'm sure you'll get it. But it won't come with any guarantees. If they were to publish it in the EPG, then people would complain when it turned out that 99% of the programmes broadcast at different times to those scheduled. They don't want to imply a guarantee that they can't keep, so they won't volunteer the minute-accurate target schedule. Is that at all helpful? Gareth. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
On 25/01/2008, Gareth Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian, > > It seems to me that one of the reasons this thread is going on so long > is that many of the people in it share a belief which you don't - and > to them it seems so obvious that they haven't bothered to state it > explicitly. Here is what I believe is the major axiom of contention: > "It is impossible to run a broadcast channel precisely to schedule" As a committed atheist, I don't ever believe anything! As someone who wrote the ITV scheduling system back in 1992, I actually have the experience to know of what I speak, no matter what other people choose to believe. The system I wrote for ITV over 15 years ago worked down to the FRAME - that's 1/25 of a second. That is how channels are scheduled. Most channels are just playout systems, this is particularly true for things like UKTV. Some channels are a mixture of live and recordings (BBC ONE, ITV-1) and these still manage to schedule programmes within second. The only exception is once-a-year news events or sports. There are some totally live channels too, such as NEWS 24. It seems to me that Brian's suggestions make sense if this axiom turns > out to be false. Similarly it seems to me that everyone else's > defence of the status quo is a description of an engineering > work-around designed to compensate for the problems caused by this > axiom holding true. My point was that the schedule on BBC TWO has been deliberately nudged along a few minutes to gain a competitive schedule advantage, and this is being withheld. I could just ask the BBC TWO scheduler if this is the case or not, I suppose. Martin and Brian batted back and forth: > > > If you can show me a broadcast schedule for a major channel which > > > publicly publishes, in advance, the exact start times of their > > > programmes (eg Never Better, Tonight at 2202 on BBC Two), then I'll > > > gladly eat a copy of the Radio Times[1]. > > I have already said that the BBC Radio 4 schedule is to the minute. > > I suspect that Martin's response might well be "Ok - but they don't > actually stick to that schedule". Indeed Steve has already said: > > > I mean, think how often Radio 4 presenters crash the pips. > > This is because they're trying their damndest to stick to a schedule > that's too tight. So they come in late on a regular basis. Just like > Southern Trains, in fact. Running something to a schedule is vital, because if you don't just chuck other people off the air, which would be selfish... News 24 is a great example of a TV channel that can keep to a schedule! And, like trains, broadcast schedules are supposed to be there so people can easily change from one line to another! There are a number of possible solutions to this problem. The one that > seems to have been universally adopted by UK TV networks is to publish > a fuzzy timetable. One that's accurate to about 5 minutes. They can > aim internally for minute-accuracy, but they know they won't get it. > This is OK, because they didn't promise minute-accuracy to the world - > only 5-minute accuracy. This is comparable to the standard practice > when making Hi-Fi equipment. If you build an amp that can cope with an > input range of between x and y (before it blows up), then you'll write > on the box that it can cope with between x+delta and y-delta. That way > there's some tolerance for when things go wrong. The schedule is accurate, but not precise. If you want to make an FOI request for the timetable everyone aims at > internally, then I'm sure you'll get it. But it won't come with any > guarantees. If they were to publish it in the EPG, then people would > complain when it turned out that 99% of the programmes broadcast at > different times to those scheduled. They don't want to imply a > guarantee that they can't keep, so they won't volunteer the > minute-accurate target schedule. Would an EPG be useful if the titles were imprecise? 99% in such environments is terrible. Is that at all helpful? As a justification for doing nothing, yes. I'm just thinking of the user of the PVR systems. Gareth. > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC News
Strange isn't it! Well the weekend begins soon so perhaps I should see what happens Monday ;) On Jan 25, 2008 4:34 PM, Ciaran Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/25/08, Darren Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Check to see what MIME types your browser is sending out in HTTP Accept > when > > you make a request (Firebug might help). > > > > It "could" be that you are sending accept application/xml+html which is > > letting you get mobile HTML (WML 2.0 XHTML) back instead of the vanilla > > type. > > For reference, for me (who's seeing the site properly), > http://www.ioerror.us/ip/headers tells me I'm sending: > > Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9 > ,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5 > > Only without the newline if my client inserted one, hee. :) > > - Ciaran. > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >
Re: [backstage] Lol
See also this... http://lolinator.com/lol/news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/default.stm On Jan 24, 2008 10:45 AM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, > > That's the best mashup since the last 2Many DJs set I heard. > > > On 23/01/2008, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Probably posted before - http://lol.ianloic.com/bbc > > - > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > > please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html > > . Unofficial list archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > > > > -- > Please email me back if you need any more help. > > Brian Butterworth > http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC News
On 25/01/2008, Darren Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Check to see what MIME types your browser is sending out in HTTP Accept > when you make a request (Firebug might help). > > > > It "could" be that you are sending accept application/xml+html which is > letting you get mobile HTML (WML 2.0 XHTML) back instead of the vanilla > type. > Or it could be a proxy server or a system like Google's accelerator that has cached the page wrongly. > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Matt Barber > *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 1:40 PM > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > *Subject:* [backstage] BBC News > > > > Anyone noticed the BBC News front page has gone to a PDA or similar > version? > > ./Matt > > > * > To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to > http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html > > * > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
Brian Butterworth wrote: The system I wrote for ITV over 15 years ago worked down to the FRAME - that's 1/25 of a second. That is how channels are scheduled. Scheduling systems may be accurate to 1/25 of a second, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are equally precise. The ability to change their minds up to the last minute *and beyond* means that the accurate times need only reflect the schedulers' intentions, rather than being set in stone. My point was that the schedule on BBC TWO has been deliberately nudged along a few minutes to gain a competitive schedule advantage, and this is being withheld. I could just ask the BBC TWO scheduler if this is the case or not, I suppose. That would be more useful than asserting it without any evidence, certainly. Would an EPG be useful if the titles were imprecise? 99% in such environments is terrible. Firstly, titles *are* imprecise - they contain spelling errors and inconsistencies (eg "Brand New Top Gear" vs "Top Gear" vs "Best of Top Gear", etc) that make it very hard for PVRs to do useful things with them (eg title-based series detection). Secondly, millions of people *do* find schedules useful despite the lack of total accuracy. So 99% in such environments is adequate. As a justification for doing nothing, yes. Something has already been done - a standard for accurate recordings has been agreed and implemented by the broadcasters and PVR manufacturers. I'm just thinking of the user of the PVR systems. The people who have bought standards-compliant PVRs get accurate recordings. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] BBC News
Anyone noticed the BBC News front page has gone to a PDA or similar version? ./Matt
Re: [backstage] BBC News
On 1/25/08, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone noticed the BBC News front page has gone to a PDA or similar version? Looks okay to me. What browser are you using? I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP from this machine. - Ciaran. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC News
On Jan 25, 2008 1:48 PM, Ciaran Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/25/08, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyone noticed the BBC News front page has gone to a PDA or similar > version? > > Looks okay to me. What browser are you using? I'm using Firefox > 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP from this machine. > > - Ciaran. > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > Same browser, 2.0.0.11 from XP. It's actually redirecting to http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm which is strange. Tried IE as well to see if it was a strange cache thing. Could it be that I am VPN'ed to a USA IP address? ./Matt
Re: [backstage] BBC News
On Jan 25, 2008 2:39 PM, Ciaran Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/25/08, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Same browser, 2.0.0.11 from XP. It's actually redirecting to > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm which > > is strange. Tried IE as well to see if it was a strange cache thing. > > > > Could it be that I am VPN'ed to a USA IP address? > > I doubt it; I actually originally accessed it from a USA IP address > first but then tried using my normal UK IP in case that was causing > the difference. > > What IP address are you coming from? Maybe it's redirecting based on > the IP for some reason. > > - Ciaran. > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > I'm on 64.103.64.1 at the moment, most GeoIP places see it as being on the west coast US but BBC see a UK IP...
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
Steve, Thanks On 25/01/2008, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian Butterworth wrote: > > The system I wrote for ITV over 15 years ago worked down to the FRAME - > > that's 1/25 of a second. That is how channels are scheduled. > > Scheduling systems may be accurate to 1/25 of a second, but that doesn't > necessarily imply that they are equally precise. The ability to change > their minds up to the last minute *and beyond* means that the accurate > times need only reflect the schedulers' intentions, rather than being > set in stone. However, my contention is that the schedule has been changed well ahead of broadcast. I don't doubt that there are changes made late, but the use of promotional films, indent sequences and continuity announcements means that almost all programmes start exactly on time. MyTV system, which at the time was lots of companies with different schedules and with the added complication of inserting a heap of different regional advertisements, certainly needed to be accurate and precise to get everyone working together. > My point was that the schedule on BBC TWO has been deliberately nudged > > along a few minutes to gain a competitive schedule advantage, and this > > is being withheld. > > > > I could just ask the BBC TWO scheduler if this is the case or not, I > > suppose. > > That would be more useful than asserting it without any evidence, > certainly. Aside from the actual timings, of course. And the new NaT on ITV1... > Would an EPG be useful if the titles were imprecise? > > > > 99% in such environments is terrible. > > Firstly, titles *are* imprecise - they contain spelling errors and > inconsistencies (eg "Brand New Top Gear" vs "Top Gear" vs "Best of Top > Gear", etc) that make it very hard for PVRs to do useful things with > them (eg title-based series detection). Secondly, millions of people > *do* find schedules useful despite the lack of total accuracy. So 99% > in such environments is adequate. This doesn't happen. They would all be recorded with the Microsoft PVR software, I'm afraid. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59 > As a justification for doing nothing, yes. > > Something has already been done - a standard for accurate recordings has > been agreed and implemented by the broadcasters and PVR manufacturers. But who would want one of these boxes with the facilities of ZX Spectum when I have a HD, 3D PVR with a Terrabyte of storage? > I'm just thinking of the user of the PVR systems. > > The people who have bought standards-compliant PVRs get accurate > recordings. I'll get onto Microsoft about this then! S > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC News
On 1/25/08, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Same browser, 2.0.0.11 from XP. It's actually redirecting to > http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm which > is strange. Tried IE as well to see if it was a strange cache thing. > > Could it be that I am VPN'ed to a USA IP address? I doubt it; I actually originally accessed it from a USA IP address first but then tried using my normal UK IP in case that was causing the difference. What IP address are you coming from? Maybe it's redirecting based on the IP for some reason. - Ciaran. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] BBC News
Check to see what MIME types your browser is sending out in HTTP Accept when you make a request (Firebug might help). It "could" be that you are sending accept application/xml+html which is letting you get mobile HTML (WML 2.0 XHTML) back instead of the vanilla type. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:40 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BBC News Anyone noticed the BBC News front page has gone to a PDA or similar version? ./Matt * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
Re: [backstage] BBC News
On 1/25/08, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Could it be that I am VPN'ed to a USA IP address? > > > > I doubt it; I actually originally accessed it from a USA IP address > > first but then tried using my normal UK IP in case that was causing > > the difference. > > > > What IP address are you coming from? Maybe it's redirecting based on > > the IP for some reason. > > I'm on 64.103.64.1 at the moment, most GeoIP places see it as being on the > west coast US but BBC see a UK IP... Interesting. Only thing I can think of if it's doing it on both Firefox and IE is that there's some User-Agent diddling going on in your network. I'll email you - this should probably be off-list. :) - Ciaran. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC News
On 1/25/08, Darren Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Check to see what MIME types your browser is sending out in HTTP Accept when > you make a request (Firebug might help). > > It "could" be that you are sending accept application/xml+html which is > letting you get mobile HTML (WML 2.0 XHTML) back instead of the vanilla > type. For reference, for me (who's seeing the site properly), http://www.ioerror.us/ip/headers tells me I'm sending: Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5 Only without the newline if my client inserted one, hee. :) - Ciaran. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
