- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:42:07 +0100
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- CC: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>, public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Ref 3. I just note that we are talking about a "comment" field. I don't mind making it mandatory, but this would send the signal to developers that they can rely on it and using a comment field to send some precise information doesn't really sound like a good thing. That said, I realize that we don't have any alternative to offer, and I doubt adding a comment in the Via HTTP header poses any technical problem. Francois. Jo Rabin wrote: > > Hey Tom > > Thanks for finding the time to collect this together. > > Some responses: > > 1. Rigo Wenning, W3C Legal Counsel spoke about this at the recent F2F. I > may have missed his point badly, but he said that if you put your > content on the Web then expect Web like things to happen. In respect of > transformation, if a technical means exists to prohibit transformation > and you don't use it then ... I confess that I have heard different > views, but then if lawyers didn't have different views we would not need > courts, would we? Either way, I am satisfied that CT has taken legal > advice. I'm note sure what purpose would be served in taking this > further given that we don't intend to include a note on this in the > document. > > 2. That's what the little reference to POWDER is about in one of the > Appendices. POWDER is not yet dry so can't be referenced, and in any > case I think that construing a new vocabulary for use under POWDER would > be beyond our scope. > > 3. I have no objection to that being compulsory. We do, in any case, > intend to elaborate the conformance requirements so that a claim of > conformance must contain a justification for any deviations from SHOULDs > in any case. > > Thanks again > Jo > > On 01/11/2008 13:15, Tom Hume wrote: >> >> Hey >> >> Anyone with oodles of time to spare reading WMLProgramming will notice >> that it's been quite busy there recently. >> >> I've taken a note of a few comments which have been raised on the list >> and seem worth a look to me. From past experience I suspect that these >> might have been dealt with already by the group, but in case they >> haven't... any thoughts? >> >> 1. Legal aspects of transcoding content have been mentioned many >> times. My view is that this sort of thing falls well outside the scope >> of a technical document, and that the legal position wrt IP rights etc >> will vary worldwide. However it has been pointed out that CTG >> participants may have access to legal resources which could cast a >> little light onto the issue, and this might be better than the total >> darkness it lurks within right now - even if such advice isn't >> suitable for inclusion into the doc. Any takers? >> >> 2. A robots.txt-like approach to transcoding has been suggested (back >> in March[1] and recently), with individual sites providing a means of >> signalling to a proxy that elements of their content should or should >> not be transcoded. Sounds like new technology to me, but has anyone >> considered this approach before? >> >> 3. Eduardo has suggested that the addition of the standard W3C string >> into the Via: field be made compulsory, such that any server might >> detect if its communication is passing via a transcoding proxy. It >> does seem possible within the current guidelines for a proxy to avoid >> adding this in, and to hide its identity behind a pseudonym - hiding >> the fact that a transcoder has potentially manipulated content from >> the origin server. >> >> Thanks >> Tom >> >> >> [1] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/message/27149 >> -- >> Future Platforms Ltd >> e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com >> t: +44 (0) 1273 819038 >> m: +44 (0) 7971 781422 >> company: www.futureplatforms.com >> personal: tomhume.org >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 11:42:48 UTC