RE: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about CT and Cache-Control extensions

Well, looks like we are on course to disagree again :-( 

 

I am worried about the idea of a Transforming proxy being regarded as a
gateway precisely because of that kind of issue. (Not to mention
reintroducing the WAP Gap and so on)

 

Jo

 

________________________________

From: Aaron Kemp [mailto:kemp@google.com] 
Sent: 06 February 2008 18:51
To: Jo Rabin
Cc: Sullivan, Bryan; public-bpwg-ct
Subject: Re: [ACTION-603] Conversation with Yves, our HTTP expert, about
CT and Cache-Control extensions

 

On Feb 6, 2008 1:47 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

	I think the point is that no-transform is not a new lock.

Your previous comment was about adding finer grained bits to
no-transform (which would be new).

No-transform is only applicable if we treat these things as proxies
anyway -- I can argue they are more like user agents of their own, or
user agent extensions, which makes the no-transform not applicable.
It's more like a text mode browser (which won't adhere to the
no-transform).

Aaron