- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:52:16 +0200
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
Resolved during the call:
- The manner in which transformation is carried out, when it is
permitted, including any additional navigational or other material that
is included, aside from where explicitly stated (insecure links etc.)
will be noted in an "out of scope section" in the document. And resolve
no to LC-2090 and LC-2091
The "out of scope" section was further defined by the following resolution:
- Mention the out of scope nature of the details of restructuring under
4.3.6 somewhere (cf insertion of headers, footers etc.)
- re. LC-2012, replace the sentence deemed obscure by "Within this
document content transformation refers to the manipulation of requests
to, and responses from, an origin server. This manipulation is carried
out by proxies in order to provide a better user experience of content
that would otherwise result in an unsatisfactory experience on the
device making the request."
- re. LC-2068, amend the text in section 4.1.2 with references to RFC
HTTP sections. Final text: "If the request contains a Cache-Control:
no-transform directive, proxies must not alter the request other than to
comply with transparent HTTP behavior defined in HTTP RFC 2616 sections
14.9.5 and 13.5.2. and to add headers as described in 4.1.6 Additional
HTTP Headers below."
- On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes
partial" to LC-2023
- Move content from Appendix E to 4.3.6 somewhere and reword
appropriately (and yes, partial to LC-2065)
Francois.
30 Sep 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0059.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Francois, tomhume, rob, jo, Bryan
Regrets
hgerlach, SeanP
Chair
francois
Scribe
rob
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]LC-2090, LC-2091 on headers/footers
2. [6]LC-2012: clarification of the introduction
3. [7]LC-2068: on requests that contain Cache-Control:
no-transform directives
4. [8]LC-2009, LC-2010, LC-2011: the Link element strikes back
5. [9]LC-2023: transformation across character sets
6. [10]LC-2065: opting-out of CT
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
LC-2090, LC-2091 on headers/footers
<francois> [12]heiko's comments
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0038.html
francois: Heiko's not here but continuing on from last week
... headers/footers are out-of-scope
... and this should be made explicit in Scope section
jo: what was the original LC comment?
<francois> [13]LC-2090
[13]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090
<francois> [14]LC-2091
[14]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091
<francois> LC-2090: "Hi, I think that CTG should mention the fact
that, in case of
<francois> transcoding, no extra content should be injected without
the consent of
<francois> the original content owner. The idea is to avoid that W3C
<francois> protocols/guidelines implicitly endorse the attempt by
those who
<francois> manage the transcoder to monetize on the
effort/investment of other
<francois> people. Of course, there is also a point that injecting
extra content
<francois> will invariably affect usability negatively and as such
should be avoided.
<francois> I suggest the following addition:
<francois> "4.3.6.3 Injection of external content
<francois> In its effort to optimise the user experience of
non-mobile optimised
<francois> sites, a proxy *should not* inject extra content into the
transcoded
<francois> pages, where the term 'extra content' refers to text,
links, banners
<francois> and other multimedia content which is not available on
the original
<francois> untranscoded page. Addition of links aimed at
implementing pagination
<francois> and navigational shortcuts is admissible.
<francois> Note: For clarity, it is emphasised that W3C does not
endorse injection
<francois> of third-party content into a transcoded page without the
explicit
<francois> consent of the content owner""
<francois> LC-2091: Consistently with my other comment that no extra
content should be added
<francois> to transcoded web sites, I think that this should apply
even more
<francois> strongly to mobile-optimised sites. Unfortunately, I see
a lot of
<francois> transcoder deployments where operators and/or transcoder
vendors feel
<francois> entitled to add advertisement and extra navigation bars
to existing
<francois> mobile optimisec ontent. Because of this, I suggest the
following
<francois> addition as a note to "4.3.1":
<francois> "Note: It should be stressed that, in case of a
|Cache-Control:
<francois> no-transform| directive, adding any extra content (such
as banners,
<francois> navigation bars and links not available in the original
application) is
<francois> not admissable"
jo: this is really contentious, I don't think we can brush over it
tom: the LC comment is clear that they want no headers/footers added
francois: yes but there is also a wish to remark that a page is
transcoded
... especially if opt-out links have to be supplied
... In sec 4.3.1 we state clearly that headers/footers are
unacceptable with Cache-Control: no-transform
jo: so is this just for when transformations have been applied?
... Do we say "out-of-scope", "never at all" or "minimised"?
tomhume: what does minimised really mean?
francois: does it mean just minimal navigation to get around the
adapted page but no branding or links away from the site?
tomhume: if we can't define "minimised" then "out-of-scope" is
preferable
francois: yes, we shouldn't leave things open to interpretation
jo: OK, an "out-of-scope" note seems the way ahead
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The manner in which transformation is
carried out, when it is permitted, including any additional
navigational or other material that is included, aside from where
explicitly stated (insecure links etc.) will be noted in an "out of
scope section" in the document. And resolve no to LC-2090 and
LC-2091
francois: if the "out-of-scope" section is small enough it should go
in the Scope section near the Introduction
<francois> +1
jo: yes, play it by ear
+1
<tomhume> +1
<jo> +1
RESOLUTION: The manner in which transformation is carried out, when
it is permitted, including any additional navigational or other
material that is included, aside from where explicitly stated
(insecure links etc.) will be noted in an "out of scope section" in
the document. And resolve no to LC-2090 and LC-2091
LC-2012: clarification of the introduction
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2012, replace the sentence
deemed obscure by "Within this document content transformation
refers to the manipulation of requests to, and responses from, an
origin server. This manipulation is carried out by proxies in order
to provide a better user experience of content that would otherwise
result in an unsatisfactory experience on the device making the
request."
<francois> +1
<jo> +1
<tomhume> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: re. LC-2012, replace the sentence deemed obscure by
"Within this document content transformation refers to the
manipulation of requests to, and responses from, an origin server.
This manipulation is carried out by proxies in order to provide a
better user experience of content that would otherwise result in an
unsatisfactory experience on the device making the request."
<jo> LC-2012 therefore resolved yes
francois: I'm keeping LC tracker up-to-date in line with these
resolutions
LC-2068: on requests that contain Cache-Control: no-transform
directives
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2068, amend the text in
section 4.1.2 with references to RFC HTTP sections. Final text: "If
the request contains a Cache-Control: no-transform directive,
proxies must not alter the request other than to comply with
transparent HTTP behavior defined in HTTP RFC 2616 sections 14.9.5
and 13.5.2. and to add headers as described in 4.1.6 Additional HTTP
Headers below."
francois: following a resolution next week, Jo you were worried
about defining "transparent"
<jo> +1
<francois> +1
+1
<tomhume> +1
RESOLUTION: re. LC-2068, amend the text in section 4.1.2 with
references to RFC HTTP sections. Final text: "If the request
contains a Cache-Control: no-transform directive, proxies must not
alter the request other than to comply with transparent HTTP
behavior defined in HTTP RFC 2616 sections 14.9.5 and 13.5.2. and to
add headers as described in 4.1.6 Additional HTTP Headers below."
<francois> LC-2068 therefore resolved yes
LC-2009, LC-2010, LC-2011: the Link element strikes back
<francois> [15]Ping-pong on Link element
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0027.html
jo: this needs more discussion
LC-2023: transformation across character sets
jo: shall we put aside until TAG responds to our comments?
<francois> [16]Tom's comments on CT and character sets
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0014.html
tomhume: seems unreasonable of forbid recoding of anything except
UTF-8
... and there is clarity in the document already
francois: could include encoding in 4.3.6.1 examples
... could include a generic "don't break content" normative
statement - but we already have one of those
jo: can weave in a reference to Character-Encoding
... this section is the only part of the document that states "if
you've decided to transform content, here's how you do it"
... ie section 4.3.6 could contain a reference to Character-Encoding
and any other transformation (eg headers/footers)
francois: Jo, what do you plan to say?
<jo> suggested text for a 4.3.6.3: Other than as noted in this
section the nature of restructuring that is carried out, what is
omitted and what is inserted is a copyright issues and is out of
scope of this document
<jo> (plus something on pagination)
<jo> ack \
francois: I'm scared this opens the door to anything!
Bryan: could we say "what is inserted is out-of-scope"
... it's not particularly copyright issues, it's a can of worms
<jo> suggested text for a 4.3.6.3: Other than as noted in this
section the nature of restructuring that is carried out, what is
omitted and what is inserted may be a copyright issues and is in any
case out of scope of this document
francois: still concerned this is very permissive
jo: are we happy leaving it at that?
<tomhume> +1
<jo> (could be a note in fact, rather than a separate sub-section)
<francois> +1
<Bryan> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On character encoding mention this under
4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes partial" to LC-2023
<francois> +1
+1
<tomhume> +1
RESOLUTION: On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and
respond "Yes partial" to LC-2023
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention the out of scope nature of the
nature of restructuring under 4.3.6 somewhere
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention the out of scope nature of the
details of restructuring under 4.3.6 somewhere (cf insertion of
headers, footers etc.)
+1
<francois> +1
<tomhume> +1
RESOLUTION: Mention the out of scope nature of the details of
restructuring under 4.3.6 somewhere (cf insertion of headers,
footers etc.)
LC-2065: opting-out of CT
francois: Jo replied to Denis
<francois> [17]Bryan's comments on LC-2065
[17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0155.html
Bryan: intention was to keep it as simple as possible
... 1) original represantation must always be available
... 2) need ability to switch between the representations
... 3) it is useful to remember the user's preference but not
essential
... So may be useful to include a section on user control of their
preferences
francois: 1 and 2 are covered
... but what we say about 2 could be a bit too generic
jo: Appendix E has some user preferences text
francois: should this be upgraded to a normative statement?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Move content from Appendix E to 4.3.6
somewhere and reword appropriately (and yes, partial to LC-2065)
+1
jo: is 2 practical?
Bryan: yes, we've deployed systems with that capability
jo: but if the content-provider has more than one representation
that's more complicated
Bryan: agreed, I meant switch just between CT-proxy transformation
and untransformed
... the spirit of the comment is to give the user control over
what's happening
jo: so we anticipate there may be preferences persisted but we don't
want to mandate it
Bryan: I'm happy with that
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: Move content from Appendix E to 4.3.6 somewhere and
reword appropriately (and yes, partial to LC-2065)
jo: that's 6 comments today!!
francois: it takes time that's for sure
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 15:52:53 UTC