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

Re: Signalling to proxies

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:47:59 +0100
Message-ID: <490B1A9F.3060509@w3.org>
To: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
CC: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>, public-powderwg@w3.org

Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
[...]
> Yes, I accept that the charter prohibits the creation of new technology,
> and I openly admit that I placed the idea into the CT forum mainly
> because the audience is right, despite the charter limitation. I copied
> the POWDER group because I hope that this use case will get some
> prominence, and maybe through a formalised example it might actually be
> adopted. After all, Robots is not an official standard and look how
> successful it has been.

I think there are three separate things here:

1/ the use of POWDER, and POWDER is indeed not an existing technology yet.

The CT Task Force chose to mention the use of POWDER in the "Scope for 
Future Works" appendix for that reason. We felt (how naive one can be 
sometimes ;)) that going to Rec would be quick and easy and that we 
would have been slowed down by a dependency on POWDER. I'm not quite 
sure today that the Content Transformation Guidelines will beat POWDER 
in the race to REC, but I don't think we should revisit that decision 
anyway.


2/ the definition of a core vocabulary that a server could use in its 
POWDER file(s) to communicate with a content transformation proxy. I 
guess there is "new technology" and "new technology", and that one could 
argue that a vocabulary is not exactly a new technology.

Again, the CT Task Force decided against it because it still looks like 
new technology.

However, were this exercise be done and the results brought to our 
knowledge, I think we could reasonably (at least try to) incorporate 
them in the guidelines without triggering an apocalypse.

That's just my personal take on this. I still think we, the CT Task 
Force, should not work on that. My real fear is that defining and 
agreeing on a core vocabulary is not an easy exercise at all. Am I too 
pessimistic?


3/ the definition of a well-known location to place a POWDER file. 
Probably not a big deal if it's not standardized right away, especially 
since we may still use the Link element for the time being. I note the 
notion of well-known locations is used by the P3P spec for example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-P3P-20020416/#Well_Known_Location

Francois.
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 14:48:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 October 2008 14:48:38 GMT