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

[minutes] CT Call Tuesday 23 September 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:47:05 +0200
Message-ID: <48D90F79.408@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
   http://www.w3.org/2008/09/23-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.


Resolutions taken during the call:
- The title of the spec will be "Guidelines for Web Content 
Transformation Proxies"
- re. LC-2012, use Tom's proposed wording (and note we may have to 
further clarify the introduction for other reasons anyway)
- LC-2064 is a mistake. There are no duplicated IDs in the document.
- re. LC-2068, we think the text is as clear as possible. Stick to the 
text in the spec.
- re. LC-2008, update the text according to Jo's proposal

... and we've been discussing some more about white lists, and the fact 
that content providers expect to see some reference to white lists in 
the document because it's something they have to deal with in practice, 
and the fact that we have diverging views on white lists. Bryan agreed 
to propose some text about that to see if we could eventually come to an 
agreement.

We'll start next week where we left: on headers/footers being out of 
scope but again something readers expect to see in the spec.

Francois.



23 Sep 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0053.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/23-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Francois, Bryan_Sullivan, hgerlach, rob, AndrewS, tomhume

    Regrets
           SeanP, jo

    Chair
           francois

    Scribe
           Bryan

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]New comments received
          2. [6]LC-2018: on the title
          3. [7]LC-2025: On the quality and purpose of the doc
          4. [8]LC-2012: clarification of the introduction
          5. [9]LC-2064: duplicated IDs in the document
          6. [10]LC-2003: no mention of whitelists
          7. [11]LC-2068: on requests that contain Cache-Control:
             no-transform directives
          8. [12]LC-2008: on use of Vary header
          9. [13]LC-2090, LC-2091 on headers/footers
      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

New comments received

    ->
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008Jul
    Sep/0154.html fd's no-comment comment

      [15] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0154.html

    <hgerlach> [16]http://cgi.w3.org/member-bin/irc/irc.cgi works

      [16] http://cgi.w3.org/member-bin/irc/irc.cgi

    <francois> [17]IAB message

      [17] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0152.html

    Francois: may be some comments coming from W3C internal review of
    the CT guidelines.

    Francois: these offer W3C staff the chance to comment given they are
    very busy

LC-2018: on the title

    <francois> - Content Transformation Proxies: Guidelines

    <francois> - Guidelines for Mobile Web Content Transformation
    Proxies

    Francois: on the doc name, we can narrow the choice between two

    <hgerlach> b) +1

    Francois: we are more about web browsing than web, but browsing may
    be a confusing term to include; mobile web seems fine

    <andrews> I favour the second

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The title of the spec will be
    "Guidelines for Mobile Web Content Transformation Proxies"

    <andrews> +1

    Bryan: recommend to leave out mobile as this is whole web content

    <andrews> Good point - I agree

    <hgerlach> Guidelines for Content Transformation Proxies in Mobile
    Networks

    <tomhume> +1

    <andrews> +1

    <hgerlach> -1

    Heiko: proposes "in Mobile Networks"

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The title of the spec will be
    "Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies"

    <francois> +1

    Bryan: we are not limiting this to mobile networks; limited
    capability devices in general

    +1

    <andrews> +1

    <hgerlach> +1

    <tomhume> +1

    <rob> +1

    Francois: suggests we come to agreement to close this item as we
    could spend a lot of time on it

    RESOLUTION: The title of the spec will be "Guidelines for Web
    Content Transformation Proxies"

    Heiko: for new people, it may be hard to know that a key use case is
    in the mobile network context

    Francois: the abstract of the title could include mobile and a
    proposal can be sent to the mailing list for that

LC-2025: On the quality and purpose of the doc

    <francois> close ACTION-831

    <trackbot> ACTION-831 Continue discussion of the title on the list
    closed

    <francois> [18]heiko's comments

      [18] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0004.html

    Francois: what can we resolve to do on this?

    Heiko: this will come out of the whole comment resolution process;
    dont want to question the whole objective, this just provides
    general guidelines on how to improve the doc

    Francois: we can include better examples and will come back to this
    in the end

    <francois> Close ACTION-829

    <trackbot> ACTION-829 Detail his thoughts arising from discussion of
    LC-2025 closed

LC-2012: clarification of the introduction

    <francois> [19]Tom's proposal

      [19] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0015.html

    <tomhume> Apologies all, I appear to have lost my telephone
    connection :(

    <francois> "Within this document content transformation refers to
    the

    <francois> manipulation of requests made to, and content delivered
    by, an origin

    <francois> server. This manipulation is carried out by proxies with
    a view to

    <francois> making content delivered more suitable for mobile
    presentation."

    Francois: we should keep this for now, we do need to improve the
    intro, and can resolve to accept Tom's wording, about the 1st
    sentence of the intro

    +1

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2012, use Tom's wording
    above, (and note we may have to further clarify the introduction for
    other reasons anyway)

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <rob> +1

    <hgerlach> +1

    RESOLUTION: re. LC-2012, use Tom's wording above, (and note we may
    have to further clarify the introduction for other reasons anyway)
    ... re. LC-2012, use Tom's wording above, (and note we may have to
    further clarify the introduction for other reasons anyway)

LC-2064: duplicated IDs in the document

    Francois: this one is a mistake; a bug in firefox

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2064 is a mistake. There are no
    duplicated IDs in the document.

    +1

    RESOLUTION: LC-2064 is a mistake. There are no duplicated IDs in the
    document.

LC-2003: no mention of whitelists

    <francois> [20]jo's proposal

      [20] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0026.html

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2003, stick to our position
    and use Jo's proposed response in public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0026.html

    <hgerlach> -1

    Francois: the essence is that this is an internal proxy issue

    Heiko: don't agree, but can accept a team agreement

    Bryan: we can consider content management interfaces through other
    specifications or fora, e.g. OMA
    ... OMA is working on content management interfaces for example

    Francois: agree that new technologies may be needed, if there is
    some clear work going on, we can mention it in the appendix

    <Zakim> rob, you wanted to support Heiko's point that whitelists do
    exist - and won't go away just because we don't mention them

    Rob: there is talk of mechanisms, but CP's are aware of the need to
    be on whitelists, so it is strange that we don't mention it in more
    detail

    Francois: the rationale is that it is not needed for our guidelines,
    and is just the internal processing of proxies; we could add a note
    mentioning whitelists

    Rob: a note should tell CP to contact the network operator if they
    are having trouble

    Bryan: should be called the "proxy operator"

    Francois: we could note that whitelist require CPs to submit some
    request to manage their handling

    Rob: it should be the proxy operator who takes the action

    Heiko: the diverging views here indicate the need for clarity; the
    history of this is that the use of lists in the proxy were to
    prevent adaptation; the same concept can be applied to user-agents
    ... the only issue left is that 200 OK pages; for dedicated URL we
    see issues with 200 OK instead of 406; human launguage guidance of
    incompatibility cannot be used semantically and thus we need
    whiltelists

    Francois: proposes someone take an action to propose text so we can
    try to get agreement on it

    Bryan: we could just list the types of functions that could be
    controlled by whitelists in tyhe document and leave the details out
    ... we can just list the functions e.g. don't modify this user agent
    or that site

    Francois: the listing of the functions is where the opinion
    divergence happens

    Heiko: we had another item about the manipulation of other headers
    as well; we can expand the user-agent mod control whitelist text (if
    we had it) to include other headers as well

    Francois: the relationship between whitelists and headers is unclear

    Heiko: to control the changing of the user agent for specific pages

    <Zakim> rob, you wanted to say we don't want to go into too much
    detail

    Heiko: the decision on whether the UA is changed should be the site
    provider's

    Rob: we should not go into too much detail about the purpose of the
    controls; just note that there may be functions that control the
    automatic behavior

    Bryan: I can try to provide some more generic text that will
    hopefully be useful

    <francois> ACTION: Bryan to provide some text on whitelists to see
    if we can include them somehow and come to an agreement re. LC-2003
    [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/23-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-850 - Provide some text on whitelists to
    see if we can include them somehow and come to an agreement re.
    LC-2003 [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-09-30].

LC-2068: on requests that contain Cache-Control: no-transform
directives

    <francois> [22]Jo's proposal

      [22] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0029.html

    <francois> "If the request contains a Cache-Control:

    <francois> no-transform directive proxies must follow HTTP sections
    14.9.5 and

    <francois> 13.5.2."

    Francois: HTTP RFC talks about presence of the cache control header;
    we need to improve the clarity of the text and would like to hear
    proposals for that
    ... text in the CT guidelines of course...

    <andrews> I think that we should leave the text unchanged.

    <francois> "If the request contains a Cache-Control: no-transform

    <francois> directive proxies must forward the request unaltered to
    the server,

    <francois> other than to comply with transparent HTTP behaviour and
    as noted

    <francois> below."

    Francois: we could clarify the "as noted below" part.

    <francois> "If the request contains a Cache-Control: no-transform
    directive proxies must forward the request unaltered to the server,
    other than to comply with transparent HTTP behavior and as noted
    below (see 4.1.6 Additional HTTP Headers)"

    Andrew: would not suggest any changes; it would probably just make
    it less clear

    Francois: we could ref the transparent HTTP behavior, but the whole
    spec is assumed to be on top of HTTP anyway

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2068, we think the text is as
    clear as possible. Stick to the text in the spec.

    <andrews> +1

    <francois> +1

    +1

    <hgerlach> +1

    <rob> +1

    RESOLUTION: re. LC-2068, we think the text is as clear as possible.
    Stick to the text in the spec.

LC-2008: on use of Vary header

    <francois> [23]Jo's proposal

      [23] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0030.html

    <tomhume> Apologies to all, I'm unable to keep a mobile signal here
    and am about to lose net.connection :(

    <francois> "If a server varies its representation according to
    examination of

    <francois> received HTTP headers then it must include a Vary HTTP
    header indicating

    <francois> the headers it examines in accordance with [ref].

    <francois> "

    Francois: The text is too long and thus obscure; Jo proposes to
    simplify the text

    <francois> Current text: "If a server varies its representation
    according to examination of

    <francois> received HTTP headers then it must include a Vary HTTP
    header indicating

    <francois> this to be the case. If, in addition to, or instead of
    HTTP headers, a

    <francois> server varies its representation based on other factors
    (e.g. source IP

    <francois> Address) then it must, in accordance with [RFC 2616

    <francois>
[   HTTP]<[24]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/#ref-H
    TTP>,

      [24] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/#ref-HTTP%3E

    <francois> include a Vary header containing the value '*'.

    <francois> "

    Francois: fine with Jo's proposal; we don't need to restate the RFC;
    readers can go there to get details

    <andrews> Agree

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2008, update the text
    according to Jo's proposal, as pasted above

    <andrews> +1

    <rob> +1

    <francois> +1

    RESOLUTION: re. LC-2008, update the text according to Jo's proposal,
    as pasted above

LC-2090, LC-2091 on headers/footers

    <francois> [25]Heiko's proposal

      [25] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0038.html

    Heiko: adpated pages could include headers/footers, for non-adapted
    pages we should not add these

    Francois: these should be out ot scope of the document; there were
    comments on copyright issues

    <Zakim> rob, you wanted to agree that just because it's possible
    does not mean it's recommended

    Bryan: we should leave this off the table

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2090, leave headers/footers
    off the table. Out of scope of this document.

    rob: agree that just because it's possible does not mean it's
    recommended

    <hgerlach> -1

    <francois> linked to
    [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0004.
    html

      [26] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0004.html

    Heiko: with RC-2025, we discussed changes related to request for
    more details; now we are being less specific

    <hgerlach> ok, bye

    Francois: suggests that people think about this over the list in the
    meantime

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to provide some text on whitelists to see if we
    can include them somehow and come to an agreement re. LC-2003
    [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/23-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 15:47:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 September 2008 15:47:44 GMT