- From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:13:12 -0800 (PST)
- To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
>That said, my preference would be to say that CT
> Proxies should treat WML content as though it had a
> no-transform specified in it,
Seems like a vote for (c). However, in departure to a
strict no-transform interpretation, I would still allow a
CT-proxy to perform the transformations specified by
the standards (i.e. WBXML encoding), since vendors
may be delivering complete packages that include both
WAP gateway and CT-proxy functionality (at least the
Nokia WAP Gateway functions like this; its WAP encoding
modules are integrated into a general content adaptation
framework).
> since there is no way within
> existing mechanisms reliably for a server to tell CT
> Proxies anything else.
Yes, that is the fundamental difficulty.
E.Casais
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 15:15:19 UTC