- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:31:17 +0100
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi, We have received 3 more comments on the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies from the Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG), see mail on public-bpwg-comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2010JanMar/0000.html I have created LC-2358, LC-2359 and LC2360 in our tracking system as a consequence. LC-2358 ----- The comment suggests changing the title of the spec to make it clear that we are talking about mobile: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2358 Wait a minute, I vaguely remember we had extensive discussions about the title in the past ;) LC-2359 ----- The comment wonders about the impact of "Cache-Control: no-transform" in a proxy-based accessibility transcoding solution: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2359 Two notes on the "Cache-Control: no-transform": - it is defined in the HTTP RFC. We advertise it in the guidelines because it was neither well-known among content providers nor respected by content transcoding proxies, but we do not alter its meaning. In other words, an HTTP proxy should already respect this directive. - I think we realize that it is a "heavy" switch, but we cannot invent a switch that would better suit our purpose, e.g to narrow the scope of the no-transform to "no desktop-to-mobile transcoding". One way to address the comment could be to add a note to call out that "Cache-Control: no-transform" is not limited to desktop-to-mobile transcoding: it also prevents desktop-to-accessible, mobile-to-accessible (and actually any type of transcoding), and should therefore be used with great care. LC-2360 ----- The comment says that it is sometimes preferable to introduce new elements and attributes that do not belong to the DTD, such as ARIA attributes in the case of accessibility: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2360 I think that is precisely the reason why we put grammar validation at a SHOULD level in the first place. Thanks, Francois.
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 10:31:48 UTC