- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:02:39 +0100
- 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." http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-scope Appendix F. "Applicability to Transforming Solutions which are Out of Scope" advises to follow the guidelines when possible: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-applicability 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 rewriting - 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. Francois.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 15:03:16 UTC