W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > April 2008

RE: Text proposal for 3.2.3 to replace the Editorial note

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:19:37 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4DEF58D@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>, "public-bpwg-ct" <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

I think that we need to tease apart the related concepts of allow and disallow lists and building a list of sites that can be/shouldn't be transformed on the basis of prior experience with them. There's also the question of what constitutes a site of course.

So I think that we should note the issues by saying that allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems for content providers since there is no mechanism for content providers to establish which lists they should be on, nor any generic mechanism though which they can check or change their status. There is also no generic vocabulary for transformation options other than "on" and "off", which can more effectively be communicated using the cache-control: no-transform option.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Francois Daoust
> Sent: 08 April 2008 10:03
> To: public-bpwg-ct
> Subject: Text proposal for 3.2.3 to replace the Editorial note
> The following is a text proposal to replace the editorial note of
> "Control by Administrative or Other Arrangements" (§3.2.3):
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/080403#sec-other-control
> "The following restrictions apply for the use of allow and disallow lists:
> - content transformation proxies SHOULD NOT expect content providers to
> register for inclusion in and exclusion of such lists, as it is
> impractical for content providers to know how to register with each one
> of the existing content transformation proxies.
> - content transformation proxies SHOULD regularly check their lists are
> accurate, and refresh them accordingly."
> I suppose this triggers (at least) the following remarks:
> 1. this section is supposed to be "means outside the scope of this
> document", so using normative statements may not be appropriate. And
> yet, this addresses a real problem.
> 2. This may better be a Note, but, again, using normative statements in
> a Note doesn't really make sense.
> HTH,
> François.
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 11:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:29 UTC