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

[minutes] Minutes of Content Transformation Call 2007-10-16

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:04:58 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B47D3E6A@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Hi 

Here [1] are minutes of today's call and as text below. Some confusion
about whether it was to take place, a reminder that the call takes place
every week now.


Cheers
Jo

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/16-bpwg-minutes.html

Content Transformation Task Force
16 Oct 2007

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Jo, Andrew, Sean_Patterson, Bryan
Regrets
    Rhys
Chair
    Jo
Scribe
    Jo, AndrewSwainston

Contents

    * Topics
         1. ACTION-575 Identify Possible Techniques
         2. Bryan's Comments
         3. Name of Problem Statement
         4. AOB
    * Summary of Action Items

 

 

<jo> Date: 2007-10-16

<Bryan> here

<jo> Scribe: Jo
ACTION-575 Identify Possible Techniques

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/575 ACTION-575

Sean: Aaron had comments on this this
... clarify no 5 - this is the idea where the original header gets sent
and then replaced depending ont he content?

jo: yes

sean: ok, think I need to get back by email with comments

jo: sure, that's what I was expecting, we need to discuss on email first
... some of them are worth trying to see
... if they work in a significant

no of cases

<scribe> Scribe: AndrewSwainston

Bryan: Good list. Use of HEAD does work in practice
... particularly used for WAP1

Jo: We need a survey of how many of these options are supported
... Possible issue with only changing the User-Agent
... hence idea of sending original headers in body of a GET
... indicated in #7

Sean: Would be problems with POST

Bryan: Have experience of using a body inside a GET - does work

<inserted> Scribe: AndrewSwainston

<inserted> Scribe: Jo

Andrew: changing user agent is seen as being important, do we have any
evidence to support that?
... raised on earlier call

sean: we do have data I am trying to get it, will chase

<AndrewSwainston> Jo: Have interesting statistics but cannot currently
share

andrew: CT PRoxy should augment but not remove content types from accept
header?

Sean: I guess ... depends if the proxy can handle it

<inserted> Scribe: AndrewSwainston

Jo: Need to raise as an issue in the guide lines

AndrewSwainston: Good list as focus of discussion

Jo: Missing - addition of Warn header
Bryan's Comments

Bryan: Question: What exactly is a CT's proxy in view of BPWG?
... if to improve usability OK but policy may be outside BPWG
... Example of policy is parental control, or to reduce cost of network
use
... can not assume all policy control is at ends of communication, some
is in the middle

<jo> thread with Bryan's comments

Jo: Idealy need a framework for all types of proxies but this would be
outside of the BPWG domain
... we probable have sufficient to work on if we limit ourselves to CT

Bryan: A mechanism to exchange end point requirements would cover other
cases
... Example - user goes to portal with links to a competitor's site -
may want to remove links because these would not work via own network
... Example - may need to change domain names in links to make them work

Jo: Some of these examples could fit our remit

Bryan: Happy to accept existing scope of problem statement
Name of Problem Statement

Jo: Suggestion that name of problem statement changes

<jo> -- Title: Proxy Transformation of Web Content

<jo> -- Sub-Title: Statement of Current Issues

Jo: No one on call minds change in name
AOB

Jo: Will send a note reminding about weekly calls

Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 15:05:36 GMT

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