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

Re: Collection of comments from WMLProgramming

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:33:49 +0000
Message-ID: <490EEFAD.1040104@mtld.mobi>
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
CC: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>, public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Good point, we should not overlook the fact that HTTP says that proxies 
may strip comments from Via headers. So we would be mandating something 
that might be stripped and that therefore, as FD points out, can't be 
relied upon.

Jo

On 03/11/2008 11:42, Francois Daoust wrote:
> Ref 3. I just note that we are talking about a "comment" field.
> 
> I don't mind making it mandatory, but this would send the signal to 
> developers that they can rely on it and using a comment field to send 
> some precise information doesn't really sound like a good thing.
> 
> That said, I realize that we don't have any alternative to offer, and I 
> doubt adding a comment in the Via HTTP header poses any technical problem.
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> Jo Rabin wrote:
>>
>> Hey Tom
>>
>> Thanks for finding the time to collect this together.
>>
>> Some responses:
>>
>> 1. Rigo Wenning, W3C Legal Counsel spoke about this at the recent F2F. 
>> I may have missed his point badly, but he said that if you put your 
>> content on the Web then expect Web like things to happen. In respect 
>> of transformation, if a technical means exists to prohibit 
>> transformation and you don't use it then ... I confess that I have 
>> heard different views, but then if lawyers didn't have different views 
>> we would not need courts, would we? Either way, I am satisfied that CT 
>> has taken legal advice. I'm note sure what purpose would be served in 
>> taking this further given that we don't intend to include a note on 
>> this in the document.
>>
>> 2. That's what the little reference to POWDER is about in one of the 
>> Appendices. POWDER is not yet dry so can't be referenced, and in any 
>> case I think that construing a new vocabulary for use under POWDER 
>> would be beyond our scope.
>>
>> 3. I have no objection to that being compulsory. We do, in any case, 
>> intend to elaborate the conformance requirements so that a claim of 
>> conformance must contain a justification for any deviations from 
>> SHOULDs in any case.
>>
>> Thanks again
>> Jo
>>
>> On 01/11/2008 13:15, Tom Hume wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey
>>>
>>> Anyone with oodles of time to spare reading WMLProgramming will 
>>> notice that it's been quite busy there recently.
>>>
>>> I've taken a note of a few comments which have been raised on the 
>>> list and seem worth a look to me. From past experience I suspect that 
>>> these might have been dealt with already by the group, but in case 
>>> they haven't... any thoughts?
>>>
>>> 1. Legal aspects of transcoding content have been mentioned many 
>>> times. My view is that this sort of thing falls well outside the 
>>> scope of a technical document, and that the legal position wrt IP 
>>> rights etc will vary worldwide. However it has been pointed out that 
>>> CTG participants may have access to legal resources which could cast 
>>> a little light onto the issue, and this might be better than the 
>>> total darkness it lurks within right now - even if such advice isn't 
>>> suitable for inclusion into the doc. Any takers?
>>>
>>> 2. A robots.txt-like approach to transcoding has been suggested (back 
>>> in March[1] and recently), with individual sites providing a means of 
>>> signalling to a proxy that elements of their content should or should 
>>> not be transcoded. Sounds like new technology to me, but has anyone 
>>> considered this approach before?
>>>
>>> 3. Eduardo has suggested that the addition of the standard W3C string 
>>> into the Via: field be made compulsory, such that any server might 
>>> detect if its communication is passing via a transcoding proxy. It 
>>> does seem possible within the current guidelines for a proxy to avoid 
>>> adding this in, and to hide its identity behind a pseudonym - hiding 
>>> the fact that a transcoder has potentially manipulated content from 
>>> the origin server.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/message/27149
>>> -- 
>>> Future Platforms Ltd
>>> e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
>>> t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
>>> m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
>>> company: www.futureplatforms.com
>>> personal: tomhume.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 12:35:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 November 2008 12:35:27 GMT