W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Automated Accessibility Options

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:04:39 -0000
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <b011qt$5gc$1@main.gmane.org>


"Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org> wrote in message
news:7722DD7F-2736-11D7-B233-000A95678F24@sidar.org...
>On Monday, Jan 13, 2003, at 21:44 Australia/Melbourne, Jim Ley wrote:
>> CC/PP is massively
>> over-engineered for the above, doesn't work simply with web caches
>> (unlike
>> Nick's x-accessibility header)
>
>Why doesn't CC/PP work readily with caches?

The problem I was forseeing is that the CC/PP RDF would be pretty much
individual, so that when you made a request, you'd include a link to your
own CC/PP RDF file, so that each request would contain different and person
specific RDF.  Therefore proxy caches would see every request as different
even with appropriate vary headers.   However I may be wrong in thinking
that self authorship is likely, perhaps people would just point at one of a
few CC/PP docs, so the requests would be very similar - If that was the
case, CC/PP seems rather pointless.

"At the least, 1.1 proxy servers should pass requests that include CC/PPs on
to servers in the hope that the servers will understand the requests"
From http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPP/  is hardly a ringing endorsement of
CC/PP and proxy caches, and actually seems to say, we're only hopeful they
work!  Quite apart from HTTP 1.0 proxies (which I'm sure exist still) where
it says " HTTP 1.0 servers and proxies may not be able to handle CC/PPs. "

In principle there's nothing in CC/PP that prevents caches from working,
simply that the proxies haven't implemented anything appropriate.

Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 08:04:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT