W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: CTG: point of detail ( LC-2378)

From: <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:39:12 +0000
To: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nz9vs-0000uK-2Q@wiggum.w3.org>

 Dear Eduardo Casais ,

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Guidelines for Web
Content Transformation Proxies 1.0 published on 11 Feb 2010. Thank you for
having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100402.html.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-bpwg-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 13 April
2010. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
François Daoust
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/12537.23110.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ct-guidelines-20100211/


=====

Your comment on 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields:
> Section 4.1.5.5 states the following:
> 
> "When forwarding an HTTP request with altered HTTP header fields, in
> addition 
> to complying with the rules of normal HTTP operation, proxies must
> include in 
> the request additional fields of the form "X-Device-"<original header
> name> 
> whose values are verbatim copies of the corresponding unaltered header
> field 
> values, so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header field
> values."
> 
> The intent of the statement is that the specific way of naming the
> backup fields
> and the fact that their values are the original, unaltered ones sent by
> the device
> are, together, the indispensable elements serving to restore the
> original HTTP
> header fields.
> 
> The construction of the sentence should fully reflect this intent. I
> suggest 
> modifying it thus:
> 
> "[...], so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header
> fields."
> 
> This makes it clear that the conventions adopted enable servers to
> reconstruct
> the entire HTTP header fields (names and values), not just their
> values.
> 
> 
> E.Casais


Working Group Resolution (LC-2378):
The group agrees and has integrated the proposed change in the
specification.

----
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 14:39:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:51 UTC