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

Re: FW: Comments on Content Transformation Guidelines? (LC-2065)

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:23:55 +0200
Message-ID: <48E1D40B.9020507@w3.org>
To: "Sullivan, Bryan" <BS3131@att.com>
CC: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Just to confirm that we'll consider this during today's call. Actually, 
it was in the agenda for discussion:

[[
6. LC-2065: opting-out of CT
-----
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0155.html
]]

Francois.


Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Forwarding this email since I did not see it in the agenda for 
> tomorrow’s call (which I won’t be attending, but feel free to consider 
> this response).
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Sullivan, Bryan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:17 AM
> *To:* Dennis Bournique
> *Cc:* public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Comments on Content Transformation Guidelines? (LC-2065)
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I took the action to propose some text for your comments. I had similar 
> input way back at the start of the CT Guidelines work, so I will 
> resurrect some of it here. The statements are terse by design. They can 
> be elaborated on but the essence of the requirement is what should be 
> agreed upon first, then the requirement level.
> 
> (this is a new section)
> 
> *4.4 User Control *
> 
> *4.4.1 Original** **Representation** **Availability*
> 
> A CT proxy SHALL provide availability of the original representation for 
> a CP response.
> 
> *4.4.2** **Selecting** **Content** **Representation Dynamically*
> 
> A CT proxy SHALL support user switching between the available 
> representations for a CP response, including the original representation 
> and transformed representations.
> 
> A CT proxy SHALL provide content in the chosen representation until the 
> user chooses another representation.
> 
> *4.4.3** **Selecting** **Content** **Representation** **as a** **Preference*
> 
> A CT proxy MAY enable the user to select a preference for a content 
> representation from among those available through the proxy.
> 
> A CT proxy that offers user-selection of content representations SHOULD 
> be capable of user selection of such preferences for specific domains 
> and globally for all domains.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
> 
> /From: Dennis Bournique <//db@wapreview.com/ 
> <mailto:db@wapreview.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Comments%20on%20Content%20Transformation%20Guidelines%3F&In-Reply-To=%253C368635.28409.qm%40web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com%253E&References=%253C368635.28409.qm%40web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com%253E>/>
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: //public-bpwg-comments@w3.org/ 
> <mailto:public-bpwg-comments@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Comments%20on%20Content%20Transformation%20Guidelines%3F&In-Reply-To=%253C368635.28409.qm%40web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com%253E&References=%253C368635.28409.qm%40web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com%253E>/
> Message-ID: <368635.28409.qm@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> /
> 
> Thanks for the response Jo.
> 
> I looked at the sections of the Guidelines that you referred to and the 
> strongest statement regarding user opt-out is in the Introduction which 
> is non-normative.
> 
>>  1.4 Summary of Requirements
> 
>>
> 
>>       5 The Content Transformation proxy needs to be able to interact 
>  >with the user:
> 
>>           1. to allow the user to disable its features;
> 
>>           2. to alert the user to the fact that it has transformed
> 
>>  content and to allow access to an untransformed representation of the
> 
>>  content.
> 
>>
> 
> In the normative sections that you refer to:
> 
> Section 4.1.5 is about not altering headers and does not address opt-out 
> specifically.
> 
> Section 4.1.5.3 refers to allowing the user to request a restructured 
> experience - which I take to mean allowing the user to opt-in to 
> transcoding even if the server provides a mobile specific version of the 
> resource. I don't have any issues with that. Users should certainly be 
> able to opt-in to transcoding of any content. 
> 
> What seems to be missing is a mandatory requirement that users be able 
> to opt-out of content transformation for any page or all pages.
> 
> The closest thing is in 4.3.6.1
> 
>>  4.3.6.1 Alteration of Response
> 
>> 
> 
>>  If a proxy alters the response then:
> 
>>
> 
>>     1. ...
> 
>>     2. ...
> 
>>     3. It should indicate to the user that the content has been
> 
>>  transformed for mobile presentation and provide an option to view the
> 
>>  original, unmodified content.
> 
> I'm concerned with the use of "should" rather than "must".  To me, 
> "Should" implies that providing opt-out is recommend rather than mandated.
> 
> In terms of not breaking existing sites and servers, opt-out is what is 
> important. If the user believes that a transcoded resource is 
> unsatisfactory, they "must" be able to request the original 
> un-transformed resource. I'd think opt-out is too important to be a 
> "should"
> 
> Regarding session management, If the user requests an un-transcoded 
> experience there is no need to maintain the current session.  A simple 
> link to the original resource should suffice.  This is what several 
> existing off-portal transcoders do including Skweezer, Mowser and Google 
> GWT.  The user may have to re-login, etc., but I don't see any practical 
> way to maintain the session which is likely to based on cookies held by 
> the proxy. Opting-out takes the proxy out of the picture so session loss 
> is inevitable.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 07:24:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 September 2008 07:24:31 GMT