RE: comment for draft 071124

Thanks for this contribution, Nigel.

You'll have noticed that section 2 doesn't completely tie in to sects 3
and 4 at the moment. It's my own view that if you say no-transform that
means nothing must change at all. While my view is that I'd like to give
content providers the power to do that, in general I'd strongly advocate
not saying that and saying something slightly less severe and blunt
edged. As proposed in section 4 of the current draft.

However, there are circumstances in which the CP should have this power
and I agree that it should be their prerogative.

Jo



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Nigel Choi
> Sent: 09 December 2007 19:38
> To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> Subject: comment for draft 071124
> 
> 
> As a content provider, I take issue with this sentence in section
> 2.3.1 and 2.5.1:
> 
> "As an exception to the previous requirement, a CT proxy should deny
> CP directives that would result in dangerous markup being sent to the
> browser."
> 
> How does that work in relation to Cache-Control: no-transform ? Does
> the Cache-Control: no-transform take precedence, i.e. the proxy sends
> the markup unaltered IN ANY CASE back to the browser, or does the
> above requirement take precedence?
> 
> It will be problematic if it is the latter. I understand this
> requirement is noble, and we have all seen what bad markup will do to
> mobile browsers. However, this may be a difficult requirement to
> fulfill in practice. The problem is in the definition of "dangerous
> markup." This assumes the content transformation proxy knows better
> than the content owner what is "dangerous" for the phone. What if it
> is wrong? What if the content owner sends the markup for a reason?
> What do you mean by "dangerous?" Without a clear definition of
> "dangerous markup" one can go down the slippery slope of banning
> content that the proxy operator deems "dangerous."
> 
> I propose that this sentence be removed from the requirement entirely.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nigel.
>

Received on Sunday, 9 December 2007 21:26:39 UTC