- From: Robert Finean <Rob.Finean@openwave.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 14:29:37 -0000
- To: "public-bpwg-ct" <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
This is a hopefully short-lived thread picking up on a conversation that started in Seoul... Considering that a CT-Proxy may alter URIs so that - it can adapt HTTPS content - it can represent "made up" resources that don't have a full equivalent URI on the origin server such as: * changing sub-page in a big web-page that gets split to fit on the phone * representing JavaScript events on the web-page on a phone that doesn't support JavaScript * capturing form inputs for a form that cannot be represented in full on the phone - it can compress URIs to accelerate the user-experience Is there any benefit in recommending that the CT-Proxy expose the original URI in the direction of the phone in a HTTP response header like Content-Location: http://bl138w.blu138.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=0000000 0-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date& n=1615301387 Is Content-Location the correct HTTP header to use? Is this just a waste of bandwidth to phones that have no use for it whatsoever? Thanks, ROb
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 14:31:31 UTC