- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:38:10 -0000
- To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
- Cc: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <member-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Heiko Thanks for this - a couple of things: First, Phil's Archer (POWDER) is a great advocate of the Link header, as am I, I suppose. However, while it _is_ in RFC 2068 as noted in the POWDER document, it is _not_ in RFC 2616 which obsoletes RFC 2068. See section 19.3 (Changes) where it says: "The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this specification, but not commonly implemented." Second, apologies but this discussion should be taking place on the public-bpwg-ct list, and I am trying to move it there. All best Jo > -----Original Message----- > From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group > Sent: 21 November 2007 09:50 > To: Sullivan, Bryan; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG > Subject: RE: ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How > Useful will the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP? [Content > Transformation Guidelines] > > > Hi All, > > It is my first contribution to the discussion since Dan Appelquist > invited me to join the group. > > Regarding option d), which I understood is not the option in favour, I > like to understand whether/how we could benefit from the > http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/ working group, especially "Protocol for > Web Description Resources (POWDER): Description Resources W3C Working > Draft 25 September 2007 > > 4.1.2 HTTP Response Header" > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-dr-20070925/#assoc-HTTP. > > Best Regards > Heiko > > -----Original Message----- > From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Sullivan, Bryan > Sent: Dienstag, 20. November 2007 20:03 > To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG > Subject: RE: ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How > Useful will the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP? > [Content Transformation Guidelines] > > > Jo, > This is a good representation of the problem at hand and the key > options. Like I said in Boston, any choice will damn us, including > inaction. Especially functional changes (being new or semantically > different/reused) to headers or values causes a variety of issues, e.g. > to interoperability (e.g. cache control as one of the more problematic > areas of variance in browser behavior). But progress demands crossing > that boundary when we have to. The question is can the CTTF make any > substantial progress on CT without such functional changes? > > The core requirements that I offered in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Nov/0000.html > point to the need of several things that cannot be provided, imo, > without functional changes, e.g. > - awareness of CT support in delivery context entities > - entity selection of CT "features" to enable/disable > - semantic disclosure of alternative representations (RFC 2295 may help, > but from an implementation perspective would still be largely new) > > Other than these functional changes, all we can do is describe what the > CT proxy should offer/do based upon current headers or other out-of-band > information (e.g. from administration or at the presentation layer, > without specifying how it was determined). That would be valuable at > least though to identify where the real functional gaps are, and focus > the followup work (which may require a charter change). > > Best regards, > Bryan Sullivan | AT&T | Service Standards bryan.sullivan@att.com > -----Original Message----- > From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:42 AM > To: member-bpwg@w3.org > Subject: ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How > Useful will the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP? > [Content Transformation Guidelines] > > > > ISSUE-227 (When is new technology "new technology"?): How Useful will > the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP? [Content > Transformation Guidelines] > > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/ > > Raised by: Jo Rabin > On product: Content Transformation Guidelines > > I took an action (ACTION-602) at today's CT Task Force Meeting to raise > this as a formal issue. > > The options seem to me to be: > > a) Cut back the proposed text to discussion of how to use no-transform > and the Vary header, together with various heuristics relating to the > nature of content (e.g. XHTML-MP, link headers and the like) > b) Introduce new values for Cache-Control, which appears to be condoned > by HTTP/1.1 in the section on Cache-Control > c) Try to use some headers that are introduced in RFC 2295 and have been > registered > d) Invent entirely new headers > > If we stuck to just a) we would achieve very little beyond what has > already been promulgated, e.g. by dotMobi. On the other hand, going > beyond that could be considered only borderline within our charter > remit. Especially option d) which I don't favour. > > Jo > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 10:38:40 UTC