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

RE: 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 10:38:10 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4904E6A@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Cc: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <member-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi Heiko

Thanks for this - a couple of things: 

First, Phil's Archer (POWDER) is a great advocate of the Link header, as
am I, I suppose. However, while it _is_ in RFC 2068 as noted in the
POWDER document, it is _not_ in RFC 2616 which obsoletes RFC 2068. 


See section 19.3 (Changes) where it says:

"The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and
Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this
specification, but not commonly implemented."

Second, apologies but this discussion should be taking place on the
public-bpwg-ct list, and I am trying to move it there.

All best
Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group
> Sent: 21 November 2007 09:50
> To: Sullivan, Bryan; 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]
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> It is my first contribution to the discussion since Dan Appelquist
> invited me to join the group.
> 
> Regarding option d), which I understood is not the option in favour, I
> like to understand whether/how we could benefit from the
> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/  working group, especially "Protocol
for
> Web Description Resources (POWDER): Description Resources W3C Working
> Draft 25 September 2007
> 
> 4.1.2 HTTP Response Header"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-dr-20070925/#assoc-HTTP.
> 
> Best Regards
> Heiko
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sullivan, Bryan
> Sent: Dienstag, 20. November 2007 20:03
> 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]
> 
> 
> Jo,
> This is a good representation of the problem at hand and the key
> options. Like I said in Boston, any choice will damn us, including
> inaction. Especially functional changes (being new or semantically
> different/reused) to headers or values causes a variety of issues,
e.g.
> to interoperability (e.g. cache control as one of the more problematic
> areas of variance in browser behavior). But progress demands crossing
> that boundary when we have to. The question is can the CTTF make any
> substantial progress on CT without such functional changes?
> 
> The core requirements that I offered in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Nov/0000.html
> point to the need of several things that cannot be provided, imo,
> without functional changes, e.g.
> - awareness of CT support in delivery context entities
> - entity selection of CT "features" to enable/disable
> - semantic disclosure of alternative representations (RFC 2295 may
help,
> but from an implementation perspective would still be largely new)
> 
> Other than these functional changes, all we can do is describe what
the
> CT proxy should offer/do based upon current headers or other
out-of-band
> information (e.g. from administration or at the presentation layer,
> without specifying how it was determined). That would be valuable at
> least though to identify where the real functional gaps are, and focus
> the followup work (which may require a charter change).
> 
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T | Service Standards bryan.sullivan@att.com
> -----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 9:42 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 10:38:40 GMT

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