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

FW (from Sean Patterson): 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 09:02:51 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4904E41@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Copying to ct list

-----Original Message-----
From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sean Patterson
Sent: 20 November 2007 23:27
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
Subject: RE: ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How
Useful will the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP?
[Content Transformation Guidelines]


My take from the F2F meeting in Boston was that there was support within
the group to go with something between b) and c); use existing
mechanisms when possible and appropriate but to recommend the use of
some "X-headers" for cases where there are differences in the headers
that the transformation proxy receives and the headers it sends out.
This was mostly discussed in the context of request headers and the case
where the User-Agent and/or Accept headers that the transformation proxy
receives are different than the User-Agent and/or Accept headers that
the transformation proxy sends out.  In these cases, the transformation
proxy would place the original request headers in new X-headers such as
X-Original-User-Agent/X-Original-Accept (or
X-Device-User-Agent/X-Device-Accept).  This basically codifies existing
practice and will hopefully stop (or at least slow down) the
proliferation of these kinds of headers.

I don't think doing something like b) is a bad idea to allow for finer
control over the operations that the transformation proxy performs.

Sean P.


-----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: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:42 AM
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 09:03:19 GMT

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