[agenda] CT Teleconference Tuesday 25 March 2008

Sending the agenda earlier than usual due to Easter day on Monday.

Note to US residents: the call is still one hour later than it was three 
weeks ago... Note to the others: the call is at the same local hour as 
before!


-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: Magnus

Date: 2008-03-18T1500Z 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.

Latest draft:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313


Proposed Agenda:

Intro
-----
- Many actions to review, but most of them should not take long.
- Still some actions that need to be done.


1. ACTION-682: Write a proposal on the HEAD request handling (§3.1.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolve on Martin's text, slightly simplified by fd:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0009.html

"Clients can issue HTTP HEAD requests in order to determine if a 
resource is of a type and/or size that they are capable of handling. A 
proxy may convert a HEAD request into a GET request if it requires the 
response body to determine the characteristics of the transformed 
response that it would return if the client issues a GET request. Where 
this occurs, the proxy should (subject to HTTP cache directives) cache 
the response that it receives so that if the client immediately follows 
the HEAD request with a GET request for the same URI, the proxy is not 
required to send a second GET request to the server."


2. ACTION-683: Inference on URIs (§3.1.2)
-----------------------------------------
Resolve on Rob's proposal not to change the bullet 3 text:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0019.html


3. ACTION-684: Bad practice to strip comments in VIA header (§3.1.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jo.
- need to note we recommend not to follow a MAY in the HTTP RFC?


4. ACTION-685: how to embed original headers (§3.1.4)
-----------------------------------------------------
On fd. Will try to send my thoughts to the list.


4. ACTION-706: Reword §2.5.1
----------------------------
Close ACTION-706 on Jo
- MAY or SHOULD for bullet 3?


5. ACTION-707: Include examples in §2.5.1 bullet 3
--------------------------------------------------
Close ACTION-707 on Jo


6. ACTION-708: Update 2.5.2
---------------------------
Close ACTION-708 on Jo


7. ACTION-709: Write some examples for 2.5.3
--------------------------------------------
Resolve on fd's text, amended by Bryan:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0018.html

"The preferences of users and of servers MAY be ascertained by means 
outside the scope of this document. These means include but are not 
limited to:
- the use by transforming proxies of a disallow-list of Web sites for 
which content transformation is known to be useless and/or to break 
delivered content.
- the use by the transforming proxies of an allow-list of Web sites for 
which content transformation is known to be necessary.
- user static preferences, e.g. provisioned by their CT service provider 
or directly by the user through self-care web sites.
- terms and conditions of service, as agreed upon between the user and 
the CT service provider."


8. ACTION-718: re Ajax/XHR requests and CT
------------------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0028.html


9. Review Server Response to Proxy (§3.2)
-----------------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313#sec-ServerResponse
- recommend the use of the HTTP Vary header
- references to POWDER
- recommend the use of <link> elements?
- HTTP-300 and/or give the user a choice of representations


10. Proxy Receipt and Forwarding of Response from Server (§3.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080227#d0e508
- how does that fit with the content tasting approach?


11. Proxy Response to Client (§3.4)
-----------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080227#d0e521
- how to advertise transformations done? Suggestions:
      + using the VIA header
      + using the PRAGMA header
      + don't advertise
- heuristics: anything else? (detection of mobile-friendly patterns in
the URI? More on link elements?)
- resolution on dangerous content.


12. Proxy Decision to Transform (§3.1.2)
----------------------------------------
- HTTP methods, URIs tokenization, separate sections
- zoom capability and should not restructure or recode
- HTTP OPTIONS tasting
- The notion of session and the need for a CT-proxy to be coherent


13. Proxy Indication of its Presence to Server (§3.1.3)
-------------------------------------------------------
Resolution on how to advertise CT-proxy's intention to transform.

Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 09:51:26 UTC