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

FW: ISSUE-223 (Jo's CT Shopping List): Various Items to Consider for the CT Guidelines [Content Transformation Guidelines]

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:05:33 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4732E20@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

For discussion on the ct list

-----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: 03 October 2007 15:03
To: member-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: ISSUE-223 (Jo's CT Shopping List): Various Items to Consider
for the CT Guidelines [Content Transformation Guidelines]



ISSUE-223 (Jo's CT Shopping List): Various Items to Consider for the CT
Guidelines [Content Transformation Guidelines]

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

Raised by: Jo Rabin
On product: Content Transformation Guidelines

In the process of editing the CT Problem Statement I have been musing on
various  things - some, but not all, of them are already suggested by
the Problem Statement. If there is any desire to discuss these, it may
be better to create individual ISSUEs for those that people choose to
discuss.

1. Under what circumstances do user's intentions and choices override
author's intentions and choices, and vice versa.

2. How should users signal their choices - if they user has a choice of
browser settings how should the browser communicate those settings,
expecially the "render as mobile" vs "render as desktop options".

3. What assumptions are legitimate for the owner of a transcoding proxy
to make about the default experience.

4. To what extent should the Guidelines talk about HOW transformation is
carried out? Do we think that this altogether an area for proprietary
differentiation or do we comment on good and bad techniques? Should we,
for example, comment on preserving document order, taking into account
absolute positioning? Do we think that servers should add clues as to
how to paginate and so on? Is this stepping into the land of UWA and
DIAL? What repertoire of processing instructions do we anticipate that
proxies are able to act on - do we think that they will understand and
interpret XSLTransform intended for client side transformation, for
example? A better example would be scripting. What about flash?

Is there a vocabulary of functions that a transforming proxy might offer
and that a user or origin server might select: e.g. pagination,
linearization. image resizing ...


5. To what extent is it permissible for a transforming proxy to step in
and correct invalid syntax, even if the origin server says not to
transform its content? Is there a difference between "no-transform" -
i.e. don't mess with my content even if it is wrong and
"no-trasnform-but-tidy-allowed".

6. Testing 

As things stand, you can only test the operation of your server in
tandem with some transforming proxy by having someone access your Web
site from the coverage area of a network that implements that version of
the proxy. We should make strong noises about the desirability of making
testing practical for content developers. Given that operators/proxy
providers were willing to do this, what infrastructure would be needed
to facilitate it? i.e. how would you find out about the test facilities
and so on?

7. Is there a question here about identifying which DDR the components
get their information from, as if you think a proxy is using a deluxe
chrome plated one, you might be more inclined to trust it than if you
think it is using a nasty plywood one. 

8. Do we expect transforming proxies to be aware of DPE servers and the
like and should we say so?

9. What part does the mysterious HTTP 300 status play in all this? Where
does it fit in with helping origin servers and proxies provide
information about alternative representations (with link rel = or
something else, to enumerate options). How does this fit in with
allowing the user to select their choice as well as helping provide a
reasonable default exprience.

10. Do we think that transforming proxies should be able to comply with
mobileOK Basic 1.0?

11. To what extent do proxies need to be powder aware and powders need
to be proxy aware? Is powder a sensible mechanism for identifying
alternative representations, and the author's intent in creating them?

12. If something is mobileOK, does that mean it is not open to
transformation?
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 14:06:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:36 GMT