Re: PF comments on Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies 1.0 ( LC-2358 LC-2359 LC-2360)

Thank you for your responses to our comments. The PFWG discussed these
today (http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-pf-minutes.html#item07) and can let
you know that we accept your disposition of the first and third
comments, LC-2358 and LC-2360. We still have concerns about the
remaining comment and did not achieve consensus yet about how we should
respond to that. We plan to discuss this further and give you a separate
answer on that one in a couple weeks. We are mindful of your 11 March
response deadline and plan to meet that. Michael

fd@w3.org wrote:
>  Dear Michael Cooper ,
>
> 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 6 Oct 2009. 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/TR/2010/WD-ct-guidelines-20100211/.
>
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-bpwg-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 11 March
> 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/4B423E4F.1060004@w3.org
>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/
>
>
> =====
>
> Your comment on the document as a whole:
>   
>> >From the introductory text and clauses such as 4.2.7 through 4.2.9, it
>> is clear that this is targeted at proxies that are transcoding content
>> for mobile devices yet the title sounds like it's targeted at any kind
>> of transformation proxy. Suggest changing the title to more accurately
>> reflect the narrower scope.
>>     
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2358):
> We have debated about the title at length previously and this is the best
> title we could think of that remains in the title category and does not
> degenerate into a full abstract. We think that the abstract section
> precises the narrower scope under which the guidelines are to be read.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 4.2.3 Receipt of Cache-Control: no-transform:
>   
>> 4.2.3: If a website contains a "Cache-Control: no transform" directive,
>> proxies must NOT alter the content. Would this be a problem for a
>> proxy-based accessibility transcoding solution?
>>     
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2359):
> We agree that the "Cache-Control: no transform" directive is heavy handed
> but it is the only mechanism provided by RFC 2616. We have amplified the
> note in Appendix I.1.3 (the appendix provides informative guidance for
> Origin Servers and this section relates to the use of the "Cache-Control:
> no-transform" directive) to state that this directive can also disrupt the
> behavior of a proxy based accessibility solution.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 4.2.9.1 Alteration of Response:
>   
>> 4.2.9.1 #2: The altered content should validate to an appropriate
>> published formal grammar and be well-formed. Validation might be a
>> problem for an accessibility transcoding solution. Validation is not
>> part of WCAG 2.0 because sometimes adding in stuff that's not in the
>> DTD
>> can make something more accessible (like ARIA for example). Note that
>> this is a "should", not a "must".
>>     
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2360):
> We agree that there are cases when validation should not have to be
> enforced and note that this is precisely why the guideline is a "should":
> transcoding proxies may need to produce content that does not validate
> against a formal grammar "but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed" (quoted from the definition of "should" in RFC 2119).
>
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
>   

-- 

Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>