- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:04:11 +0200
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- CC: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Well, the conformance section needs to be pompous (and scary?) anyway ;-) +1 for "conforming content deployment" and "conforming transformation deployment". Francois. Jo Rabin wrote: > Thanks Francois, I'm wondering if we should distinguish "a conforming > proxy" from a "a conforming deployment" to take into account section 4. > My suggestion being that we have a "conforming content deployment" and a > "conforming transformation deployment" or does that sound even more > "pompous" :-) > > Jo > > On 23/07/2008 11:03, Francois Daoust wrote: >> Thanks for the updated draft! >> >> Jo Rabin wrote: >> [...] >>> @@TODO - Conformance Statement [Francois, please? pretty please?] >> >> Given our schedule, the rechartering should be done and we should be >> able to publish the document as normative. >> But the AC review on the rechartering is not over yet. I don't expect >> there will be any problem, but then it seems that problems arise each >> time we anticipate something will go smoothly :-( >> >> That being said, let's suppose for a minute things go as planned for >> once... >> >> We need a Conformance Statement, and the more precise the Conformance >> Statement, the better. >> >> The Content Transformation Guidelines apply to two classes of products: >> 1. Content Providers content (need to find a better name): "servers" >> 2. Content Transformation proxies: "proxies" >> >> Most of the guidelines apply to "proxies", but I think we should still >> have a conformance model for "servers", to emphasize the fact that all >> parties need to make some "efforts" to work together, and to allow >> each party to point the other one to the fact that they conform to the >> specification. >> >> The document is incredibly well organized, both in terms of sections >> and in terms of content (for the coxswain, hip hip hurrey!): >> - Sections 3.1, 3.3 and 4 apply to "proxies" >> - Section 3.2 applies to "servers" >> >> It is not mandatory, but we may want to reword all normative >> statements to start with "proxies" or "servers". It's already the case >> for most of them. There just remain a couple of guidelines that are >> either using a singular form instead of a plural, either using a >> passive form: >> e.g: in 3.3.1 Receipt of Cache-Control: no-transform >> "the response MUST remain unaltered" >> which could be rewritten as >> "proxies MUST leave the response unaltered" >> >> We should also flag normative and informative parts in some way. >> >> Below is a (poor) (pompous) attempt to write a Conformance Statement. >> I would suggest to drop current section 2.3 and create a new normative >> section 3. Conformance. >> >> ----- >> X. Conformance >> >> X.1 Classes of Products >> The Content Transformation Guidelines specification has two classes >> of products: >> - Content Providers content [any better name?] identified in the >> normative statements using the term *servers* >> - Content Transformation proxies identified in the normative >> statements using the term *proxies* >> >> X.2 Normative & Informative parts >> Normative parts are identified by the use of *(Normative)* next to >> the section name. >> Informative parts are identified by the use of *(Non-Normative)* >> next to the section name. >> >> X.3 Normative language for conformance requirements >> The key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, >> should not, recommended, may, and optional in this Recommendation have >> the meaning defined in [RFC 2119]. >> >> X.4 Servers conformance >> Servers are conforming to the Content Transformation Guidelines if >> they follow the statements defined in section 3.2 Server Response to >> Proxy >> >> X.5 Proxies conformance >> Proxies are conforming to the Content Transformation Guidelines if >> they follow the statements defined in sections 3.1 Proxy Forwarding of >> Request, 3.3 Proxy Forwarding of Response to User Agent, and 4. Testing >> ----- >> >> HTH, >> Francois. >
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2008 08:04:15 UTC