- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:28:00 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
This is the proposed agenda for tomorrow's teleconf.
It includes some of my suggestions, but note they are nothing more than
"stupid suggestions" to trigger ideas:
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: none
Date: 2008-02-18T1500Z for 60mn
Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.
Current draft:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124
Agenda:
1. Introduction
---------------
- we should present our draft to the WG before Seoul's F2F, for
validation/comments and hopefully publication as First Public Working Draft.
- goal is to ground our guidelines on reality.
2. Grounding on reality
-----------------------
- "available" technologies:
HTTP Accept, Cache-Control, Vary, Via headers
Extensions to Cache-Control (I tend to think that's already "new"
technology...)
- ... and what else?
- we may reference "new" technologies as possible ways to improve the
situation in the future: OMA-DPE for instance?
- in practice, CT-proxies do more than just CT of content "with a view
to making it more suitable for mobile presentation". Terms and
conditions exist. Headers/Footers may be "compulsory", ... That's
probably beyond the scope of the document, but that means
"Cache-Control: no-transform" will never be totally respected.
3. Client Origination of request (§3.1)
---------------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e306
- let go of all the HTTP CT-proxy control mechanisms in the request,
save, possibly the Cache-Control: no-transform directive?
- replace HTTP control mechanisms with an options-oriented approach,
leaving the practical implementation of the approach as CT-dependent?
(for legacy browsers, that's a WEB interface, in the future... using
OMA-DPE?)
4. Proxy Receipt, Forwarding or Response to a Request (§3.2)
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e339
- remove all mentions to Cache-Control extensions?
- remove indications of "I will transform"?
- use a generic "X-Modified-Headers" (or any other name) HTTP header to
reference the original headers modified by the CT-proxy and in
particular the original User-Agent?
5. Server Response to Proxy (§3.3)
----------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e501
- stick to Cache-Control: no-transform?
- recommend the use of the HTTP Vary header
6. Proxy Receipt and Forwarding of Response from Server (§3.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e581
- anything else to say?
7. Proxy Response to Client (§3.5)
----------------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080124#d0e594
- mention of "mandatory" transformations that may be done by a CT-proxy
as agreed by terms & conditions and/or as imposed by carriers?
François.
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 14:28:06 UTC