- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:45:24 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] [...] > a couple of questions: > > i) on the request side, how does the URI requested constitute a heuristic, if we are saying that the headers should not be transformed a) unless the user requests it and b) unless the request is rejected? I'd say the same way as "the HTTP method of the request" which is in the list as well, does. It refers to the proxy's intention to offer transformation services, and not to the proxy's transformation of the request headers. > > ii) on the response side, I think we may mean the URI of the response (i.e. content-location or the result of resolving redirects, rather then the originally requested URI, and if that is what we mean we should say so ....) > You're absolutely right for the Content-Location case, and for any redirect that would be initiated by the CT-proxy (when the CT-proxy discovers a <link alternate="handheld"> typically). But as for regular 302 redirects, isn't the redirection supposed to be done on the end-user side? In that case, from the point of view of the CT-proxy, there should be no difference between the requested URI and the URI of the response (provided there's no Content-Location header in the response). Best explained with an example: 1. user sends a request on A 2. CT-proxy sees request on A 3. server responds with a 302 to B 4. CT-proxy lets redirect response A go by 5. The user agent sends a request on B 6. CT-proxy sees request on B 7. server response with response for B 8. CT-proxy applies CT on B. For the CT-proxy, the request associated to B is on B, and not on A. 9. The user sees response B for his/her request on A and is a happy user. Am I missing something? Francois.
Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 15:45:57 UTC