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

Content-Location

From: Robert Finean <Rob.Finean@openwave.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 14:29:37 -0000
Message-ID: <7F652B9B6A93184AB38BBCF677E7287A051AE194@bfs-exch-prd1.myopwv.com>
To: "public-bpwg-ct" <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

This is a hopefully short-lived thread picking up on a conversation that
started in Seoul...

Considering that a CT-Proxy may alter URIs so that
 - it can adapt HTTPS content
 - it can represent "made up" resources that don't have a full
equivalent URI on the origin server such as:
   * changing sub-page in a big web-page that gets split to fit on the
phone
   * representing JavaScript events on the web-page on a phone that
doesn't support JavaScript
   * capturing form inputs for a form that cannot be represented in full
on the phone
 - it can compress URIs to accelerate the user-experience


Is there any benefit in recommending that the CT-Proxy expose the
original URI in the direction of the phone in a HTTP response header
like

Content-Location:
http://bl138w.blu138.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=0000000
0-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&
n=1615301387

Is Content-Location the correct HTTP header to use?

Is this just a waste of bandwidth to phones that have no use for it
whatsoever?

Thanks,

ROb
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 14:31:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 November 2008 14:31:31 GMT