W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > November 2007

FW: ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How Useful will the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP? [Content Transformation Guidelines]

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:00:35 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4904E3E@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Cc: "BPWG" <member-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi ct-ites

Mainly because of the way Tracker works at the moment this has been
discussed on the member-bpwg list. I'll copy the responses received so
far to this list and encourage further discussion on this public list.

Those on member-bpwg - please send further responses to the ct list.

Thanks
Jo


-----Original Message-----
From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker
Sent: 20 November 2007 17:42
To: member-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How
Useful will the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP?
[Content Transformation Guidelines]



ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How Useful will
the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP? [Content
Transformation Guidelines]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/

Raised by: Jo Rabin
On product: Content Transformation Guidelines

I took an action (ACTION-602) at today's CT Task Force Meeting to raise
this as a formal issue.

The options seem to me to be:

a) Cut back the proposed text to discussion of how to use no-transform
and the Vary header, together with various heuristics relating to the
nature of content (e.g. XHTML-MP, link headers and the like)
b) Introduce new values for Cache-Control, which appears to be condoned
by HTTP/1.1 in the section on Cache-Control
c) Try to use some headers that are introduced in RFC 2295 and have been
registered
d) Invent entirely new headers

If we stuck to just a) we would achieve very little beyond what has
already been promulgated, e.g. by dotMobi. On the other hand, going
beyond that could be considered only borderline within our charter
remit. Especially option d) which I don't favour.

Jo
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 09:01:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:37 GMT