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

Content Transformation Guidelines 1l (Rev 12) and Change List

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:35:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4877E034.8080108@mtld.mobi>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Please find Draft 1l at [1]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080712

I haven't linked to a diff as the changes are very extensive.

This draft is not as polished as I would have liked, but it is more or 
less there. Some links missing and undoubtedly some typos, but I have 
run out of time and wanted to get this out in good time for Tuesday's 
meeting.

I hope to be able to attend that meeting but I'm afraid I am not sure 
yet exactly what my availability is.

Extensive notes of things done follows.

Cheers
Jo


Changes to draft 1l

Section numbers per draft 1k

1. In response to Sean's comments [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0018.html
Editorial changes to 1.3, 2.1. Sean's comments on 4.4 overtaken by events.

2. Minutes of CT Call 10 June:
a. Normative ... the document is to become normative so the section on
RFC2119 has changed.

b. Proxy vendors to determine when a 200 response is really a 406 -
editorial note removed, existing Note stands but remains silent on how
to detect. Overtaken by subsequent events in large part in any case.

c. Drop editorial note at end of 4.3

3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0023.html

CT Namespace
a. Edited to become  http://www.w3.org/ns/ct

4 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0025.html

Insert new section on applicability to solutions that are not in scope.

5. Remove section 4.3 and rewrite its contents to fit under 4.2 and 4.4

6. ACTION-732 HTTPS link re-writing

7. ACTION-766 Note on X-Device

8. ACTION-770 semi-persistent (section has been restructured anyway)

9. Resolutions from F2F

RESOLUTION: Restart rechartering process now, where the only changes:
would be the informative to normative change for this doc, as well as
extend the WG, 6 months into 2009

reword section on rfc2119, reword caveat text to refer to a proposed
normative Recommendation.

RESOLUTION: a Link header/element with media type of handheld and a URI
referring to a location within the resource indicates that the current
representation of the resource is intended for handheld presentation

RESOLUTION: Make the point explicitly in the document that an href which
refers to this resource but which does not have a fragment identifier on
a link header/element means that this resource is capable of being
rendered in a way that is suitable for handheld presentation, but that
without the above link element there is a question as to whether this
representation is or is not...

     RESOLUTION: Make the point explicitly in the document that an href
     which refers to this resource but which does not have a fragment
     identifier on a link header/element means that this reource is
     capable of being rendered in a way that is suitable for handheld
     presentation, but that without the above link element there is a
     question as to whether this representation is or is not...

RESOLUTION: Regarding ISSUE-261, adopt Jo's proposal for a process
     for a process for CT bogus 200 response detection (4.1.2) and close
     ISSUE-261.
ACTION-777 - Edit 4.1.2 according to above resolution
[as an illustrative appendix]

RESOLUTION: Adopt Jo's wording for 4.1.2 of the CT document (pending
     some editorial "tweaking")

ACTION-778 - Add the stuff on possible use of
     OPTIONS to the appendix
ACTION-779 - Transcribe points 7 8 9 and 11 of
     ISSUE-223 into Scope for future work
[done except for the stuff on DPE]
ACTION-780 - Add text to section 4.4 referencing
     above resolution on mobikeOK
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-243 and mention this topic in the appendix
     as scope for future work.
RESOLUTION: For CT guidelines, for included resources within a page,
     additional content tasting is not required.
RESOLUTION: For CT guidelines, except in the case of https, the
     content transformation guidelines document does not differentiate
     between URI rewriting and so-called "transparent" proxy operation.
[not quite sure where to put the above]

RESOLUTION: Regarding ISSUE-241, in the CT guidelines we agree that
     the proxy does not have to taste every linked resource (for the sake
     of clarity).
RESOLUTION: Regarding ISSUE-241, in the CT guidelines we should
     state that when the proxy makes a request for a linked resource to a
     new "web site", then what's in section 4.1.2 should happen (allowing
     for different heuristics for determining whether request is to a
     different or the same "web site" but giving "hitting a new domain
     name" as a good example. And remove the word "session" from the
     previous resolution on 4.1.2. And close ISSUE-241.
ACTION-781 - Enact changes sugegsted by the
     previous 4 resolutions
RESOLUTION: re. ISSUE-255, drop mention of examination of URI from
     4.1.2 as it's a heuristic to scope rejected 200 responses, detailed
     in 4.4, and 4.1.2 already precises to examine the response (with a
     link to 4.4)
RESOLUTION: Regarding ISSUE-258, move section 3.1 of CT Guidelines
     document into Scope section (and refresh to synchronize with the
     rest of the document) moving removed requirements into scope for
     future work (and close ISSUE-258).
RESOLUTION: On point 12 of ISSUE-223 (whether CT proxies should refrain
from transforming MobileOK content) we should allow for the possibility
that CT proxies should be able to transform MobileOK content but that
they should take into account MobileOK-ness as part of the heuristics
involved in determining whether content is mobile-friendly (but remain
silent on how you check if something is mobileOK).

[done under heuristics and added bibref]

ACTION-782 - Draft text on which aspects of the
     CT guidelines should be followed by e.g. Opera Mini

RESOLUTION: It is permissible for the proxy to offer the user a
     restructured desktop presentation on a 'site' by 'site' basis
RESOLUTION: Insert into the document a scoping statement that says
     that a proxy is a CT proxy in scope of this document only where no
     prior arrangement exists between the operator of the proxy and a
     content provider. One where an arrangement exists with the content
     provider is an adaptation solution, is considered to be part of the
     origin server and is therefore out of scope
  RESOLUTION: In the context of tasting content, if header comes back
     as cache-control no-transform, then CT proxies SHOULD change to
     transparent proxy operation (e.g. sending a http redirect)
[not sure where to put the above]

  RESOLUTION: If the response includes a Cache-Control: no-transform
     directive then the response must remain unaltered other than to
     comply with transparent HTTP behavior and other than as follows. If
     the proxy determines that the resource as currently represented is
     likely to cause serious mis-operation of the user agent then it may
     advise the user that this is the case and must .provide the option
     for the user to continue with unaltered content.

   RESOLUTION: If the server has alternative representations then it
     should indicate this using link header/elements
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 22:36:27 UTC

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