Re: Signalling to proxies

 > Thanks for the P3P reference, Francois. It further supports the
 > viability of the practice of "well known locations".

IIRC one of the points made to the proto-POWDER group (might even be in 
the POWDER charter, actually) was that well known locations are regarded 
as "bad practice" and that they needed to find some other mechanism.


On 31/10/2008 14:56, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> From bitter experience, there are two rules to follow regarding the
> creation of vocabularies:
> 1. You've underestimated the effort, so increase your estimate.
> 2. See 1.
> To re-emphasise, I'm not suggesting that either groups copied on this
> message take on board the task of addressing this issue. Nevertheless,
> comments on the merits, demerits, feasibility and challenges are very
> welcome, and hopefully will encourage someone somewhere to actually do
> some work on it.
> Thanks for the P3P reference, Francois. It further supports the
> viability of the practice of "well known locations".
> Good luck with the race to Rec (to both groups!).
> ---Rotan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Daoust [] 
> Sent: 31 October 2008 14:48
> To: Rotan Hanrahan
> Cc: Jo Rabin; public-bpwg-ct;
> Subject: Re: Signalling to proxies
> Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes, I accept that the charter prohibits the creation of new
> technology,
>> and I openly admit that I placed the idea into the CT forum mainly
>> because the audience is right, despite the charter limitation. I
> copied
>> the POWDER group because I hope that this use case will get some
>> prominence, and maybe through a formalised example it might actually
> be
>> adopted. After all, Robots is not an official standard and look how
>> successful it has been.
> I think there are three separate things here:
> 1/ the use of POWDER, and POWDER is indeed not an existing technology
> yet.
> The CT Task Force chose to mention the use of POWDER in the "Scope for 
> Future Works" appendix for that reason. We felt (how naive one can be 
> sometimes ;)) that going to Rec would be quick and easy and that we 
> would have been slowed down by a dependency on POWDER. I'm not quite 
> sure today that the Content Transformation Guidelines will beat POWDER 
> in the race to REC, but I don't think we should revisit that decision 
> anyway.
> 2/ the definition of a core vocabulary that a server could use in its 
> POWDER file(s) to communicate with a content transformation proxy. I 
> guess there is "new technology" and "new technology", and that one could
> argue that a vocabulary is not exactly a new technology.
> Again, the CT Task Force decided against it because it still looks like 
> new technology.
> However, were this exercise be done and the results brought to our 
> knowledge, I think we could reasonably (at least try to) incorporate 
> them in the guidelines without triggering an apocalypse.
> That's just my personal take on this. I still think we, the CT Task 
> Force, should not work on that. My real fear is that defining and 
> agreeing on a core vocabulary is not an easy exercise at all. Am I too 
> pessimistic?
> 3/ the definition of a well-known location to place a POWDER file. 
> Probably not a big deal if it's not standardized right away, especially 
> since we may still use the Link element for the time being. I note the 
> notion of well-known locations is used by the P3P spec for example:
> Francois.

Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 15:03:37 UTC