- From: Sean Patterson <SPatterson@Novarra.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:46:51 -0500
- To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "public-bpwg-ct" <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Thanks for the update, Jo! Here are my comments on draft 1k: Section 1.3: (minor) Last paragraph in section 1.3: Replace comma with semicolon (or dash) in sentence "The BPWG is not chartered to create new technology, its role is to ...". Section 2.1: The definition of a transparent proxy has square brackets around the entire definition, while the definition of a non-transparent proxy has square brackets around just part of it. Was this done on purpose? I guess I'm not clear on the purpose of the square brackets here. Section 2.1: (minor) In some places "non-transparent" has a hyphen and some places it does not ("non transparent"). RFC 2616 uses the hyphen, so we probably should too. Section 4.4: My comments to the second to last paragraph of this section are at [1]. Sean [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0009.html > -----Original Message----- > From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Jo Rabin > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:22 PM > To: public-bpwg-ct > Subject: Content Transformation 1k - and Change List > > > Please find Draft 1k at [1] > > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors- > drafts/Guidelines/080606 > > Extensive changes so I haven't done a formal diff but feel free to use > the DOM-in-ator at [2] > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff > > to generate one. > > Extensive notes of things done and not done and some notes of decisions > yet to be taken follow. > > Cheers > Jo > > > 1. from the minutes of the BP call of 5th June > > - Remove references to normative and remove section on conformance. > > - Adjust wording of Normative Language for Conformance Requirements to > suit above. > > 2. from the minutes of 15 April > > Resolutions taken during the call: > - to replace the editorial note in 4.1.2 re alteration of request > bodies, write something along the lines of "the CT-proxy MUST ensure > that the origin server receives the form it expects" > - list "Always request the desktop presentation of the resource" as one > of the examples in 3.2.1 > - add a bullet to the first list of bullets in 4.1.2 "any knowledge it > has of user's preferences" > - remove first bullet that says: "any administrative arrangements that > are in place with the user, or the server" (in 4.1.2 as well) > > 3 from the minutes of 22 April > > ACTION-738 - Create text about transforming > proxies generating valid documents and propose it in next draft [on > Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-29]. > > RESOLUTION: to replace paragraph on "advanced browsers" and CT, add > it as an example to "any knowledge it has of user agent > capabilities" in 4.1.2 and add it as a bullet point in the list of > heuristics in 4.4 > > ACTION-740 - Find a way of crafting FD's text > above and weaving it skilfully into the flow of the text [on Jo > Rabin - due 2008-04-29]. > > > > 4. From the minutes of 29 April > > RESOLUTION: in §4.4, add a bullet point to the list of heuristics > that says "examination of the content reveals that the page contains > client-side scripts that may mis-operate if the page gets adapted" > > RESOLUTION: In 4.1.1, "As an example of this, a web page sending > asynchronous HTTP requests (e.g. XHR calls) may include a > no-transform directive if it doesn't want the message to be > transformed" > RESOLUTION: format of the VIA header comments: either the URI > "[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/ct", a URI derived from this one > (that defines properties such as "active"), or a URI to a POWDER > resource that describes the capabilities of the proxy > RESOLUTION: Rewrite §3.2.1 roughly based on what it was before: > "They MAY also provide the ability for their users to make a > persistent expression of preferences." > (not sure in what way this was meant to be different to a similar > resolution from 15 April) > > RESOLUTION: at the end of §4.1.2, add "The proxy MUST NOT issue a > POST/PUT request with altered headers when the response to the > unaltered POST/PUT request contains an HTTP status code 200" (in > other words, it may only send the altered request for a POST/PUT > request when the unaltered one was refused with a clear 406) > RESOLUTION: at the end of §4.1.2, add a "The theoretical idempotency > of GET requests is unfortunately not always respected in practice. > Not to break existing content, the proxy SHOULD send only one > request." > > 5. From the minutes of 6 May > > RESOLUTION: Note: CT Proxies SHOULD avoid sending duplicate requests > where possible and specifically SHOULD NOT send duplicate requests > for comparison purposes only > (merged with previous resolution per) > ACTION-752 - Propose text for the final part > of 4.1.2 taking into account resolutions and discussion on this and > the previous call [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-13]. > > RESOLUTION: Mention content type as a contributory heuristic (no > specific mentions) and list the DOCTYPEs mentioned by Sean in > [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000. > html > > RESOLUTION: Include X-Forwarded-For and use of meta http-equiv in > next rev > > 6. From the minutes of 13 May > > Resolutions taken during the call: > - don't go any further with the XHR topic [fd to write a "thank you" > email to public-webapi] > - Mention examination of URIs in the list of heuristics in 4.4 > (transformation of the response) and mention SeanP's list (wap.*, m.*, > ...) as examples > NOT DONE [- Mention examination of URIs also in 4.1.2 (transformation of > the > request) to complete the list after "the proxy SHOULD analyze whether it > intends to offer transformation services by referring to:".] > > > 7. No meeting 20 May > > 8. From the minutes of 20 May > > Resolutions taken during the call: > - One-time URIs are already addressed in the guidelines. Close the > discussion. > - Keep things as resolved re. idempotency for the end of 4.1.2. Valid > use of "idempotent". > - for sessions: replace the editorial note with the above note. Do not > mention sessions. Do not go into more details. > [where "above note" is: > Note: When possible, the consistency of user experience should be > maintained across a sequence of related requests.] > > *** Editorial discretion: reworded the bullet > > from > > any knowledge it has of server preferences, derived either from a > repository of such preferences, or from previous interaction with the > server; > > to > > any prior knowledge it has of server behavior, derived from previous > interaction with the server - and in particular to preserve the > consistency of user experience across a sequence of related requests; > > 9. From the minutes of 3 June > > Resolutions: > - keep it simple for the VIA header comment format: http://[ct > namespace] and no mention of properties + the possibility to replace the > URI with a link to a POWDER-like resource > - if an HTML response includes a <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" > type="[content-type]" href="[uri]" /> tag, the CT-proxy SHOULD request > and return the resource pointed to by [uri] instead of the current one. > - don't recommend the addition of a "Warning" HTTP header to the request > - leave the "2 CT-proxy on the line" tricky issue out of scope and > reference it the "Scope for Future Work" appendix > - Final name for the "X-Device" header is "X-Device" > - do not say anything on "Content-Location" and other generic caching > techniques > > Jo is to provide an updated draft by next week. > > and so he has ... > > 10. Additionally > > Scope of further work - moved all POWDER references > Mention need for changes to HTTP. > etc > > A. Editorial Note: The BPWG requests feedback on the degree to which it > is necessary to distinguish between Content Transformation proxies that > interact with user agents using HTTP, and other types of arrangements > where a (proprietary) client application interacts with an in-network > component using other techniques. > > this needs resolution > > B. normative Need link to definition > > Where is the discussion of types of document? > > C. Editorial Note: The BPWG is studying how to clarify the scope of > "persistent" and "semi-persistent". > > Are we still? > > D. Editorial Note: The BPWG is studying heuristics for determining when > a response with a 200 Status should be treated as a response with a 406 > Status. > > We need an answer on this > > E. Editorial Note1k: Need to put something at the end of the rainbow in > case the URI is ever resolved. > > Need to action someone to make sure that a pointer to this document is > put at that URI ... > > F. Editorial Note: The BPWG is studying the use of the link element of > HTML which is used for this purpose. It is noted that the link element > is not available in formats other than HTML, and it is noted that there > is currently active discussion about the use of the Link HTTP header, > which would serve this purpose well. > > We have resolved that the proxy should follow links, but we never > discussed what the server should do by way of inserting links. > Additionally I'm unclear how to point to "self". Additionally we need to > be clear what happens to the link element in the multi-serving case ... > > G. Editorial Note: The BPWG is aware that more precision may be needed > in the above statement. If a transforming proxy has followed the > guidelines in this document, then it should not receive a response with > a Vary header if it has not already received such a response to a > request with unaltered headers. > > Don't find any discussion on this, suggest we just drop this note > > H. unless the resource referenced is the current resource (1k) as > determined by [unresolved discussion] .... > > I. 4.1.2 Proxy Decision to transform - this needs a bit of a write > through as discussed under ISSUE-255 > > J. Need to review all ISSUES and ACTIONS to make sure they are dealt with. > > Cheers > Jo > > > > > > > > > Jo >
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 19:47:38 UTC