Re: [CTG] Draft 2008-11-07 / http-equiv / WML

>That said, my preference would be to say that CT
> Proxies should treat WML content as though it had a 
> no-transform specified in it, 

Seems like a vote for (c). However, in departure to a 
strict no-transform interpretation, I would still allow a
CT-proxy to perform the transformations specified by
the standards (i.e. WBXML encoding), since vendors
may be delivering complete packages that include both
WAP gateway and CT-proxy functionality (at least the
Nokia WAP Gateway functions like this; its WAP encoding
modules are integrated into a general content adaptation
framework).

> since there is no way within 
> existing mechanisms reliably for a server to tell CT
> Proxies anything else.

Yes, that is the fundamental difficulty.

E.Casais