- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:35:11 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi, in preparation of next week's F2F, this is the agenda I'd like to follow during the half-day session we'll have on Content Transformation on Monday morning. Comments welcome. I use stars below to spot topics according to the probable amount of discussion that will be needed to address them: [*] means discussion should be fairly limited [**] means a bit of discussion is likely to be needed [***] means a fight might take place. Bring your axes. Chainsaws not allowed. I grouped Last call comments where it made sense. I wrote some proposed resolutions where I thought we could quickly agree without much discussion or where I thought an initial proposed resolution would trigger some useful discussion. Francois. Short introduction (10mn) ----- - Where we are. - Things we already agreed on. - How we'll proceed: parsing the document using the annotated view of the document and resolving on comments: http://tinyurl.com/634lue LC-2066 - missing RFC 2616 section - 2.1 Types of Proxy [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2066, resolve yes, add missing section reference LC-2003 - whitelists - 4.1 Proxy Forwarding of Requests [***] ----- http://www.w3.org/2008/09/23-bpwg-minutes.html#item06 ACTION-850 on Bryan to provide some text on whitelists LC-2044, LC-2069 - 4.1.3 Treatment of Requesters that are not Web Browsers [**] ----- - how to identify browsers: specific values in e.g. the User-Agent header? - a MUST statement for something that relies on heuristics seems odd. LC-2070 - Proxies SHOULD follow standard HTTP procedures - 4.1.4 Serving Cached Responses [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2070, resolve yes, and reformulate the text to "..." LC-so-many - 4.1.5 Alteration of HTTP Header Values [***] ----- LC-1996, LC-2071, LC-2072, LC-2073, LC-2049, LC-2017, LC-2036, LC-2053, LC-2005, LC-2038, LC-2054 ... and also LC-1997, LC-2006, LC-2014, LC-2046 on 4.1.5.5 Original headers ... and then LC-2077, LC-2040 on 4.1.5.5 Original headers See: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-bpwg-minutes.html#item04 - List of HTTP headers that may need to be changed: User-Agent, UAProf, Accept and other Accept-* headers - No identified need to delete a HTTP header - No strong problems raised by modifications of the Accept family of headers - Need to change User-Agent and UAProf because of the "long-tail" of legacy Web pages, main target of CT - If there's an original request sent with the original headers, what is the need to send the original headers in a X-Device-* header in the modified request? - X-Device-* requires an internet draft LC-2074 - profiling HTTP, idempotency of GET requests - 4.1.5.1 Content Tasting [**] ----- - Servers are indeed the ones to blame for not respecting the idempotency of GET. - That doesn't mean however that proxies should take that for granted in practice. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2074, resolve partial, keep the warning for CT-proxies vendors about the situation in practice, but downgrade the normative statement to a note. LC-2075 - Heuristics for 200 rejected responses - 4.1.5.2 Avoiding "Request Unacceptable" Responses [**] ----- - Not specifying heuristics leaves CT-proxies vendors free for product differentiation - We do restrict ourselves to POST here because the whole guidelines only apply to GET/POST/HEAD. LC-2037 - POST retry - 4.1.5.2 Avoiding "Request Unacceptable" Responses [*] ----- - PUT removed - Is the statement so obvious we don't need to write it down? LC-2076, LC-2039 - same headers for all resources - 4.1.5.4 Sequence of Requests ----- - "representation" is used in its supposed definition - clarification needed to state that proxies must behave consistently across requests for embedded resources LC-2079 - Servers SHOULD respond with 406 - 4.2.1 Use of HTTP 406 Status [*] ----- - The whole section 4.2 will be switched to informative LC-2041, LC-2080 - Use of MUST for servers - 4.2.2 Server Origination of Cache-Control: no-transform [*] ----- - The whole section 4.2 will be switched to informative LC-2045 - Respect of RFC2616 - 4.2.2 Server Origination of Cache-Control: no-transform [*] ----- - We shouldn't restate the RFC 2616 - Maybe clarify in the introduction that conformance with RFC2616 is implied? LC-2081 - About not basing actions on knowledge - 4.2.3.1 Use of Vary HTTP header [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2081, resolve partial, clarify that servers should not change their behavior because there is a CT-proxy on the line LC-2009, LC-2010, LC-2011 - Use of the link element - 4.2.3.2 Indication of intended presentation media type of presentation [?] ----- - Pending a reply from the TAG? LC-2020 - Copyright - 4.3 Proxy forwarding of response to user agent [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, we do not want to step into legal matters LC-2082, LC-2042 - Cascading proxies - 4.3.2 Receipt of Warning: 214 Transformation Applied [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2082, LC-2042, resolve no, cascading proxies are not as easy as they seem, and the "MUST NOT" only applies to "CT" proxies, not proxies in general. LC-2083 - Sniffing rejected responses - 4.3.3 Server Rejection of HTTP Request [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2083, resolve partial, we are addressing legacy content, there is no way to be more precise. Remove the part on "servers that do not implement this Recommendation". LC-2084 - purpose of behavior - 4.3.4 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial, and add a link back to 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case LC-many - Heuristics - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform [**] ----- - I think the point is mostly that we only list examples of heuristics where commenters want to see guidelines. LC-1998: no transformation for application/xhtml+xml LC-1999: no transformation for small pages LC-2048, LC-2002: more URIs patterns LC-2052, LC-2021: more doctypes and content types LC-2022 - i-mode content - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform [*] ----- - we only list examples of heuristics. - should we add an example of heuristic for i-mode content? LC-2090, LC-2000 - No extra content without the consent of the content owner - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform [**] ----- - out of scope, copyright issue, legal matters? LC-2013 - meta http-equiv - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2013, resolve yes, and clarify that we mean "in the absence of a Vary HTTP header and in the absence of a no-transform directive defined at the HTTP level or using a meta http-equiv element containing Cache-Control: no-transform" LC-2051 - Open Mobile Alliance Standard Transcoding Interface work - Appendix A and D [**] ----- - review the STI specs? LC-1995 - About "recent" HTTP "drafts" - Appendix D.2 [*] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1995, resolve yes, and replace "recent draft of HTTP" by "HTTP 1/1" LC-2047 - Cascading proxies - Appendix D.4 Inter Proxy Communication [**] ----- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve no, and point out a specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter LC-2043 - Guidelines vs. protocol - General [*] ----- - guidelines. - review at the end to make sure we're on firm grounds there. LC-2097 - Internet Architecture Board - General [*] ----- - review RFC 3238
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 15:35:50 UTC