Re: Feedback on content transformation guidelines ( LC-2066 LC-2067 LC-2068 LC-2069 LC-2070 LC-2071 LC-2073 LC-2072 LC-2074 LC-2075 LC-2076 LC-2077 LC-2078 LC-2079 LC-2080 LC-2081 LC-2082 LC-2083 LC-2084)

• From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
• Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:05:43 +0100
• To: Tom Hume <tom.hume@futureplatforms.com>
• CC: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
• Message-ID: <4B0BE837.9030809@eunet.no>

Tom Hume wrote:
> Maybe I've misunderstood you. You said "t he fact that there may be 
> (easily identifiable) cases where multiple GETs may change the status 
> of the site, does not mean that probing the site cannot be performed 
> safely for all the parties involved."
>
> Who's taking on the responsibility for easily identifying cases where 
> a site receive multiple GETs and ensuring this is a safe operation 
> (which doesn't affect site statistics, protection of content, or 
> generation of files)? If it's the site owner, then you're expecting 
> them to make (simple) changes to accommodate these situations, aren't you?

right. But what I meant is that the responsibility of making sure that 
there are not multiple GETs for the cases where this can be harmful is 
totally up to the proxy.

Luca

Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 14:06:25 UTC