W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [ACTION-912] Suggest some new wording on X-Device-* fields

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:59:33 +0000
Message-ID: <49B65625.9080003@mtld.mobi>
To: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
CC: public-bpwg@w3.org
+1 to Eduardo's wording here, modulo the following amendment:

I don't think we should commit to making a change since the process is 
likely to take more time than the working group is currently set to run. 
So I suggest the following:

In place of:

the W3C shall, in collaboration with the IETF, reframe it rigorously in 
terms of existing and future standards. This implies that the specified 
X-Device prefixed fields may, at some time, become deprecated in favour 
of new equivalent fields, or of an entirely different approach replacing 
them.

the following:

it is possible that in future, in collaboration with the IETF, this 
approach will be reconsidered. This implies that the specified X-Device 
prefixed fields may, at some time, become deprecated in favour of new 
equivalent fields, or that an entirely different approach will be taken 
to representing such values.

In addition, I haven't got to the point in my review of the 
correspondence on list where I am comfortable that we have completely 
resolved the underlying question of whether these fields are required at 
all. My own position on this at present is that I think that the fields 
are useful, however, like I say, I haven't completed my review of the 
discussion (and tbh while I recall the discussion I haven't found the 
relevant minutes etc. yet).

Jo

(For tracker - cf ACTION-897]

On 09/03/2009 09:05, Eduardo Casais wrote:
> The action is stated as "Suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header 
> fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF 
> and may deprecate this in the future".
> 
> ACTION 912.
> 
> The modification is to be applied to section G.5 of the CT guidelines in its
> current version (2008-11-07 1p), not taking into account several alterations to
> the document still pending.
> 
> -----
> 
> At present HTTP does not provide a mechanism for communicating the original 
> values of header fields modified in transit. The scheme based on X-Device 
> prefixed fields described under 4.1.5 "Alteration of HTTP header values" records
> and clarifies an approach used to achieve this effect by some content 
> transformation proxies. This scheme relies upon non-standard HTTP fields, which 
> are identified by their prefix as experimental according to IETF standards 
> (notably RFC822 and RFC2076), and are not included in the IANA registry 
> of HTTP header fields. While the mechanism defined in section 4.1.5, based on
> current practice, applies to conforming transformation proxy deployments, the 
> W3C shall, in collaboration with the IETF, reframe it rigorously in terms of 
> existing and future standards. This implies that the specified X-Device prefixed
> fields may, at some time, become deprecated in favour of new equivalent fields,
> or of an entirely different approach replacing them.
> 
> -----
> 
> Whenever this action point is to be handled, I ask that action 897, discharged 
> over a month ago as lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0000.html, 
> be ticked off as well.
> 
> 
> E.Casais
> 
> 
>       
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 12:00:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC