W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: CT: mandating respect of some heuristics

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:02:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4980738F.4000705@w3.org>
To: David Storey <dstorey@opera.com>
CC: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi David,

David Storey wrote:
> One question.  This assumes that proxies can be turned off.  There are 
> mobile browsers that can't turn off the proxy as they wouldn't work 
> without it, such as Opera Mini, TeaShark, Skyfire, Bolt, et al.  We 
> obviously don't want to be seen as just specifying for the "rich mans 
> web", that can afford mobiles capable of using a full smart phone level 
> browser.  We can either specify that these browsers can transform the 
> content if there is no other way to display the content, or we can 
> forbid the browser/proxy to display the page as the browser vendors will 
> just ignore you and the document.

Such browsers are generally considered to be out of scope of these 
guidelines. The Scope section reads:
"Clients that interact with proxies using mechanisms other than HTTP 
(and that typically involve the download of a special client) are out of 
scope, and are considered to be a distributed user agent."

Appendix F. "Applicability to Transforming Solutions which are Out of 
Scope" advises to follow the guidelines when possible:

In short, for the use case here, such browsers are totally out of scope, 
the proxy part is considered to be an internal component of the browser.

[Side notes:
  - These browsers are also out of scope for the discussion on links 
  - As a counter-example, the discussion on HTTPS includes them in the 
global picture, because the deported nature of the proxy component is 
what triggers security concerns]

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 15:03:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:59 UTC