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

Re: CT - interacting with the user

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:02:33 +0200
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Public BPWG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u0yuej10wxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:37:54 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

> Chaals
> The requirement on the proxy only kicks in when they are doing things  
> that mean they are stepping out from behind the transparency you discuss.

No, the transparency I discuss is not the one mentioned in the spec, but
the fact that the user isn't generally in direct communication with the
proxy (the user agent is), but is getting presented something that
purports to be the content s/he is looking for, as transformed by the

> So I'd prefer to remain silent on this. Many of the proxies we are  
> talking about in this case, do in fact communicate directly with the  
> user. I don't think we should mandate the nature of the communication.

Well, as I understand it we are mandating a set of interactions by
requiring the proxy to get some information from the user, or give the
user some information. Is it sufficient to deliver these in a terms of
service agreement, or do we mean that these should be live interactions
during the browser session?

And if we mean the latter, what are the minimum ways to satisfy this - is
it sufficient to add a link back to the proxy for warnings and
interactions somewhere after the bottom of the content the proxy is being
asked to present, or do these need to be visible warnings presented before
the page itself?

I agree that we should be very conservative in mandating interaction  
behaviour, but I think in the current draft we are simply underspecifying  
requirements, and since I believe that a terms of service agreement  
satisfies the current draft, but I believe that is not what the group has  
in mind, I think we need to get a bit more clarity on this.



> Cheers
>  From Chaals:
> Proxies by their nature don't generally interact directly with the user.  
> I
> think it is worth explaining what we mean by "inform the user", "advise
> the user", "allow the user to..." etc.
> One approach is for the proxy to ship content explicitly to the user
> (instead, presumably, of what the user actually asked for). Another is to
> make flags available to the user agent which is accessing the proxy (e.g.
> generating 300 responses, vary headers, or the like) which would allow  
> the
> UA to do whatever it normally does that allows the user to make choices.
> This question is important because at the moment we seem to be implying
> requirements on the proxy which either make assumptions about the UA, or
> contradict the goal of letting the user simply go to the content they
> asked for (which is the service proxies generally provide, trying to be  
> if
> not transparent in teh terms of the document then at least as invisible  
> as
> possible).
> cheers
> Chaals

Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
       je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 12:03:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC