- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:04:58 +0100
- To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi Here [1] are minutes of today's call and as text below. Some confusion about whether it was to take place, a reminder that the call takes place every week now. Cheers Jo [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/16-bpwg-minutes.html Content Transformation Task Force 16 Oct 2007 See also: IRC log Attendees Present Jo, Andrew, Sean_Patterson, Bryan Regrets Rhys Chair Jo Scribe Jo, AndrewSwainston Contents * Topics 1. ACTION-575 Identify Possible Techniques 2. Bryan's Comments 3. Name of Problem Statement 4. AOB * Summary of Action Items <jo> Date: 2007-10-16 <Bryan> here <jo> Scribe: Jo ACTION-575 Identify Possible Techniques -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/575 ACTION-575 Sean: Aaron had comments on this this ... clarify no 5 - this is the idea where the original header gets sent and then replaced depending ont he content? jo: yes sean: ok, think I need to get back by email with comments jo: sure, that's what I was expecting, we need to discuss on email first ... some of them are worth trying to see ... if they work in a significant no of cases <scribe> Scribe: AndrewSwainston Bryan: Good list. Use of HEAD does work in practice ... particularly used for WAP1 Jo: We need a survey of how many of these options are supported ... Possible issue with only changing the User-Agent ... hence idea of sending original headers in body of a GET ... indicated in #7 Sean: Would be problems with POST Bryan: Have experience of using a body inside a GET - does work <inserted> Scribe: AndrewSwainston <inserted> Scribe: Jo Andrew: changing user agent is seen as being important, do we have any evidence to support that? ... raised on earlier call sean: we do have data I am trying to get it, will chase <AndrewSwainston> Jo: Have interesting statistics but cannot currently share andrew: CT PRoxy should augment but not remove content types from accept header? Sean: I guess ... depends if the proxy can handle it <inserted> Scribe: AndrewSwainston Jo: Need to raise as an issue in the guide lines AndrewSwainston: Good list as focus of discussion Jo: Missing - addition of Warn header Bryan's Comments Bryan: Question: What exactly is a CT's proxy in view of BPWG? ... if to improve usability OK but policy may be outside BPWG ... Example of policy is parental control, or to reduce cost of network use ... can not assume all policy control is at ends of communication, some is in the middle <jo> thread with Bryan's comments Jo: Idealy need a framework for all types of proxies but this would be outside of the BPWG domain ... we probable have sufficient to work on if we limit ourselves to CT Bryan: A mechanism to exchange end point requirements would cover other cases ... Example - user goes to portal with links to a competitor's site - may want to remove links because these would not work via own network ... Example - may need to change domain names in links to make them work Jo: Some of these examples could fit our remit Bryan: Happy to accept existing scope of problem statement Name of Problem Statement Jo: Suggestion that name of problem statement changes <jo> -- Title: Proxy Transformation of Web Content <jo> -- Sub-Title: Statement of Current Issues Jo: No one on call minds change in name AOB Jo: Will send a note reminding about weekly calls Summary of Action Items [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 15:05:36 UTC