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

Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1m (Rev 13) [was Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1l (Rev 12) and Change List]

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:03:51 +0200
Message-ID: <48870207.5020301@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Thanks for the updated draft!

Jo Rabin wrote:
[...]
> @@TODO - Conformance Statement [Francois, please? pretty please?]

Given our schedule, the rechartering should be done and we should be 
able to publish the document as normative.
But the AC review on the rechartering is not over yet. I don't expect 
there will be any problem, but then it seems that problems arise each 
time we anticipate something will go smoothly :-(

That being said, let's suppose for a minute things go as planned for once...

We need a Conformance Statement, and the more precise the Conformance 
Statement, the better.

The Content Transformation Guidelines apply to two classes of products:
  1. Content Providers content (need to find a better name): "servers"
  2. Content Transformation proxies: "proxies"

Most of the guidelines apply to "proxies", but I think we should still 
have a conformance model for "servers", to emphasize the fact that all 
parties need to make some "efforts" to work together, and to allow each 
party to point the other one to the fact that they conform to the 
specification.

The document is incredibly well organized, both in terms of sections and 
in terms of content (for the coxswain, hip hip hurrey!):
  - Sections 3.1, 3.3 and 4 apply to "proxies"
  - Section 3.2 applies to "servers"

It is not mandatory, but we may want to reword all normative statements 
to start with "proxies" or "servers". It's already the case for most of 
them. There just remain a couple of guidelines that are either using a 
singular form instead of a plural, either using a passive form:
  e.g: in 3.3.1 Receipt of Cache-Control: no-transform
	"the response MUST remain unaltered"
	which could be rewritten as
	"proxies MUST leave the response unaltered"

We should also flag normative and informative parts in some way.

Below is a (poor) (pompous) attempt to write a Conformance Statement.
I would suggest to drop current section 2.3 and create a new normative 
section 3. Conformance.

-----
X. Conformance

  X.1 Classes of Products
   The Content Transformation Guidelines specification has two classes 
of products:
    - Content Providers content [any better name?] identified in the 
normative statements using the term *servers*
    - Content Transformation proxies identified in the normative 
statements using the term *proxies*

  X.2 Normative & Informative parts
   Normative parts are identified by the use of *(Normative)* next to 
the section name.
   Informative parts are identified by the use of *(Non-Normative)* next 
to the section name.

  X.3 Normative language for conformance requirements
   The key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, 
should not, recommended, may, and optional in this Recommendation have 
the meaning defined in [RFC 2119].

  X.4 Servers conformance
   Servers are conforming to the Content Transformation Guidelines if 
they follow the statements defined in section 3.2 Server Response to Proxy

  X.5 Proxies conformance
   Proxies are conforming to the Content Transformation Guidelines if 
they follow the statements defined in sections 3.1 Proxy Forwarding of 
Request, 3.3 Proxy Forwarding of Response to User Agent, and 4. Testing
-----

HTH,
Francois.
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 10:04:26 UTC

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