Hi, This is the proposed agenda for tomorrow's teleconf. It includes some of my suggestions, but note they are nothing more than "stupid suggestions" to trigger ideas: Chair: François Staff Contact: François Known regrets: none Date: 2008-02-18T1500Z for 60mn Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152 Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665. Current draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124 Agenda: 1. Introduction --------------- - we should present our draft to the WG before Seoul's F2F, for validation/comments and hopefully publication as First Public Working Draft. - goal is to ground our guidelines on reality. 2. Grounding on reality ----------------------- - "available" technologies: HTTP Accept, Cache-Control, Vary, Via headers Extensions to Cache-Control (I tend to think that's already "new" technology...) - ... and what else? - we may reference "new" technologies as possible ways to improve the situation in the future: OMA-DPE for instance? - in practice, CT-proxies do more than just CT of content "with a view to making it more suitable for mobile presentation". Terms and conditions exist. Headers/Footers may be "compulsory", ... That's probably beyond the scope of the document, but that means "Cache-Control: no-transform" will never be totally respected. 3. Client Origination of request (§3.1) --------------------------------------- http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e306 - let go of all the HTTP CT-proxy control mechanisms in the request, save, possibly the Cache-Control: no-transform directive? - replace HTTP control mechanisms with an options-oriented approach, leaving the practical implementation of the approach as CT-dependent? (for legacy browsers, that's a WEB interface, in the future... using OMA-DPE?) 4. Proxy Receipt, Forwarding or Response to a Request (§3.2) ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e339 - remove all mentions to Cache-Control extensions? - remove indications of "I will transform"? - use a generic "X-Modified-Headers" (or any other name) HTTP header to reference the original headers modified by the CT-proxy and in particular the original User-Agent? 5. Server Response to Proxy (§3.3) ---------------------------------- http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e501 - stick to Cache-Control: no-transform? - recommend the use of the HTTP Vary header 6. Proxy Receipt and Forwarding of Response from Server (§3.4) -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e581 - anything else to say? 7. Proxy Response to Client (§3.5) ---------------------------------- http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e594 - mention of "mandatory" transformations that may be done by a CT-proxy as agreed by terms & conditions and/or as imposed by carriers? François.Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 14:28:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 February 2008 14:28:06 GMT