- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 14:46:03 +0200
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: AndrewS, Jo
Date: 2008-05-27T1400Z 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/080410
1. One time URIs
----------------
Discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0012.html
Proposed resolution:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: One-time URIs are already addressed in the
guidelines. Close the discussion.
2. Idempotency - for clarity
----------------------------
Related action:
ACTION-751 on fd
Discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0027.html
Proposed resolution:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Keep things as resolved re. idempotency for the
end of 4.1.2. Valid use of "idempotent".
3. Sessions and consistency of user experience
----------------------------------------------
Related action:
ACTION-755 on fd
Discussions:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0019.html
http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-bpwg-minutes.html#item03
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0031.html
(points 2. and 3.)
Summary:
- Do sessions raise a real problem? They don't seem to.
- We don't say anything about re-written links that target the proxy who
re-issue a request to the origin server. Should we say something?
- There should be a link to the untransformed version of a page, but
this latter page cannot, by definition, contain a link to the
transformed version. Problem?
4. Link element
---------------
Discussions:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0007.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0021.html
Summary:
- Linking to a "handheld" version could be used by the CT-proxy to
redirect the user to the appropriate representation.
- Linking to self could be used as a "handheld" flag, but that's a bit
stepping away from what "alternate" means, isn't it?
- An empty string may be used to link to self.
5. Via header comment format
----------------------------
Related action:
ACTION-750 on fd
Discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0036.html
Summary:
- No easy way to define multiple values within one URI
- Suggestion is to "keep it simple": no attempt to define multiple values.
6. Cache-Control: no-transform
------------------------------
Discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0031.html
Summary:
- the CT-proxy is part of a bigger box that may not follow the
guidelines and is out of scope.
- "Cache-Control: no-transform" is a switch for Content Providers.
- I think the guidelines are clear on that but feel free to suggest ways
to make this clearer.
7. What's next
--------------
- X-Device-[original header name]: final name, for §4.1.4
- distinction between CT proxies and say Opera mini for §2.1 (ACTION-678
on Sean)
- scoping bogus 200 responses for §4.1.2 (ACTION-673 on Aaron)
Apart from that, we're mostly done as far as the content is concerned.
If you have other comments, time to raise them!
+ some other issues and actions that we need to go through:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
8. AOB
------
Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 12:46:40 UTC