Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

W3C fuckers in action

Expand Messages
  • Luca Passani
    People, here is how W3C is finding ways to ignore my (and your) comments to CTG and leave things exactly as they are. These are the minutes from the face2face.
    Message 1 of 215 , Oct 22, 2008
      People, here is how W3C is finding ways to ignore my (and your) comments
      to CTG and leave things exactly as they are. These are the minutes from
      the face2face.

      Of notice, the resolution about the User-Agent string:

      > RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is but is
      > reinforced by saying that the CT proxy SHOULD NOT change headers and
      > values other than User Agent and Accept(-*), MUST NOT delete headers
      > and it MUST be psosible for the server to reconstruct the original
      > UA originated headers by using X-Device etc.

      Please observe how the dotMobi, Novarra, Openwave and Vodafone supported
      this. Shame on them all. I will remind this to them every time that they
      fill their mouth with the word developer again.

      Now we have a written confession. They ignored the tons of comments
      which said "do not change the UA string" and intend to screw up the
      mobile web with the blessing of W3C.

      They even lie without a trace of shame throught the whole meeting!

      > <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no since lots of
      > non-mobile web pages actually send xhtml+xml mime type.

      I challenge them to find any real website which uses this MIME-type
      (they will find very few, because the MIME type screws up MSIE and, in
      many cases, also Firefox, Safari and Opera). So no regular web site will
      use that MIME type. They blatantly lie, lie, lie.

      Of interest how they called the comment about copyright protection
      "bogus". (LC-2020, by Casays).

      They also avoided taking up the discussion about how bad messing with
      HTTPS is!

      This link will let you retrieve the comments people sent:

      http://tinyurl.com/634lue

      with the comment number you can track how the W3C eluded the point being
      raised in the comment itself (rather than addressing it).

      Luca

      -------- Original Message --------
      Subject: [minutes] BPWG F2F day 1 - 2008-10-20
      Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:38:29 +0000
      Resent-From: public-bpwg@...
      Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:32:07 +0200
      From: Francois Daoust <fd@...>
      To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@...>



      Hi guys,

      The minutes of day 1 of our F2F are available at:
      http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html

      The agenda changed a bit. We decided to go through the list of Last Call
      comments received on Content Transformation, and spent the day on that.

      Francois.


      20 Oct 2008

      [2]Agenda

      [2]
      http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/Mandelieu/agenda.html

      See also: [3]IRC log - [4]Day 2 minutes

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-bpwg-minutes

      Attendees

      Present
      Kai, Jeff, Francois, DKA, Dom, Jo, SeanP, Rob, Adam, Nacho,
      Abel, Jonathan, Seungyun, RigoWenning

      Observers
      Shadi_Abou-Zahra (W3C), Kangchan_Lee (ETRI), David_Thevenin
      (ExpWay), Ann_Bassetti (Boeing), Kai_Hendry (Aplix),
      Vagner_Diniz (nic.br), Manuel_Serrano (INRIA),
      Stephane_Boyera (W3C)

      Regrets
      Soonho, Bryan

      Chair
      DKA, Jo

      Scribe
      francois, Dom, Adam, Sean, jeffs, Jeff, Jo, Rob

      Contents

      The whole day was spent addressing the [5]Last Call comments
      (member-only link) received on the [6]Content Transformation
      Guidelines document.
      * [7]Topics
      1. [8]Content Transformation Guidelines: where we are
      2. [9]LC-2066 - missing RFC 2616 section - 2.1 Types of Proxy
      3. [10]LC-2044 - 4.1.3 Treatment of Requesters that are not
      Web Browsers
      4. [11]LC-2070 - Proxies SHOULD follow standard HTTP
      procedures - 4.1.4 Serving Cached Responses
      5. [12]LC-2069 - 4.1.3 Treatment of Requesters that are not
      Web Browsers
      6. [13]LC-2003 - whitelists - 4.1 Proxy Forwarding of Requests
      7. [14]LC-1996 et al - 4.1.5 Alteration of HTTP Header Values
      8. [15]LC-2074 - profiling HTTP, idempotency of GET requests -
      4.1.5.1 Content Tasting
      9. [16]LC-2037 - POST retry - 4.1.5.2 Avoiding "Request
      Unacceptable" Responses
      10. [17]LC-2075 - Heuristics for 200 rejected responses -
      4.1.5.2 Avoiding "Request Unacceptable" Responses
      11. [18]LC-2076, LC-2039 - same headers for all resources -
      4.1.5.4 Sequence of Requests
      12. [19]LC-2079, LC-2041, LC-2080 - 4.2.1 Use of HTTP 406
      Status - 4.2.2 Server Origination of Cache-Control:
      no-transform
      13. [20]LC-2045 - Respect of RFC2616 - 4.2.2 Server Origination
      of Cache-Control: no-transform
      14. [21]LC-2081 - About not basing actions on knowledge -
      4.2.3.1 Use of Vary HTTP header
      15. [22]LC-2009, LC-2010, LC-2011 - Use of the link element -
      4.2.3.2 Indication of intended presentation media type of
      presentation
      16. [23]LC-2020 - Copyright - 4.3 Proxy forwarding of response
      to user agent
      17. [24]LC-2082, LC-2042 - Cascading proxies - 4.3.2 Receipt of
      Warning: 214 Transformation Applied
      18. [25]LC-2083 - Sniffing rejected responses - 4.3.3 Server
      Rejection of HTTP Request
      19. [26]LC-2084 - purpose of behavior - 4.3.4 Receipt of Vary
      HTTP Header
      20. [27]LC-1998 - No transformation for application/xhtml+xml -
      4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform
      21. [28]LC-1999 - No transformation for small pages - 4.3.6
      Proxy Decision to Transform
      22. [29]LC-2048, LC-2002, LC-2052, LC-2021 - Heuristics - 4.3.6
      Proxy Decision to Transform
      23. [30]LC-2022 - i-mode content - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to
      Transform
      24. [31]LC-2090, LC-2000 - No extra content without the consent
      of the content owner - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform
      25. [32]LC-2013 - meta http-equiv - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to
      Transform
      26. [33]LC-2051 - Open Mobile Alliance Standard Transcoding
      Interface work - Appendix A and D
      27. [34]LC-1995 - About "recent" HTTP "drafts" - Appendix D.2
      28. [35]LC-2047 - Cascading proxies - Appendix D.4 Inter Proxy
      Communication
      29. [36]W3C mobileOK Logo and policy
      * [37]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

      [5]
      http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
      [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801

      <dom> [38]Registrants for the F2F

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/registrants#mwbp

      DKA: Welcome to lovely Cannes-Mandelieu

      Content Transformation Guidelines: where we are

      [39]detailed agenda for the review of last call comments

      [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Oct/0047.html

      Francois: our content transformation guidelines are in last call,
      and received quite a few comments
      ... we're at a stage where we're trying to agree on the resolutions
      to these comments
      ... we already took a couple of important resolutions in the task
      force
      ... first, we'll focus on content transformation proxies
      ... the current document gives guidance both to content providers
      and content transformation proxies vendors
      ... so we've decided to remove the normative statements for content
      providers, and we'll move them as informative only
      ... and keep the focus only on content transformation proxies
      ... the second resolution we've made was to soften the language used
      in HTTPs in the guidelines
      ... trying to make sure we do not endorse the rewriting of HTTPS
      links
      ... still trying to give guidance on how to do it correctly when you
      decide you want to do it

      Jo: We would like something even less acknowldeging as RFC2119-MAY
      ... as a presentational point, we're removing the MAY and will turn
      it into a conditional statement ("If you rewrite HTTPs links...")

      Francois: A certain number of comments we're received were based on
      a misinterpretation of our intent
      ... the rationales behind our normative statements were not always
      explicit, so we may need to add clarifications
      ... We won't discuss HTTPs today
      ... My goal today is to go through as many unresolved last call
      comments as possibly
      ... there are some comments that are re-raising tough issues on
      which we had difficulty finding consensus

      DKA: I think if there are no new elements brought on these issues, I
      think our default should be not to re-open the issue

      Jo: but we need to consider whether the comment introduce new
      information we hadn't seen before

      Francois: my message list comments roughly in the order of the
      document

      [40]Annotated view of the document with the lc comments

      [40] http://tinyurl.com/634lue

      LC-2066 - missing RFC 2616 section - 2.1 Types of Proxy

      Francois: starting with LC-2066, missing reference - proposing we
      accept it

      [41]LC comments tracker on content transformation guidelines

      [41]
      http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

      [42]LC-2066

      [42]
      http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2066

      PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2066 and add the reference

      <DKA> +1

      <francois> +1

      RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2066 and add the reference

      <jo> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      <rob> +1

      LC-2044 - 4.1.3 Treatment of Requesters that are not Web Browsers

      Francois: next LC-2044 and 2069
      ... on section 4.1.3
      ... we want to restrict our guidelines to the "web browsing context"
      ... but we don't have a definition for that, and there is no way to
      technically distinguish those
      ... so putting normative statements on this is somewhat meaningless

      DKA: we could alter it to say "if you recognize it's not web
      browsing, you must not..."

      Rob: but how can you positively identify that?

      Francois: no existing proposed recommendation

      Jo: this text has been in for ages, proposed by Bryan
      ... maybe Bryan would have some additional input on that one?
      ... for 2044, I think we can clarify that our intent was to target
      the values of the existing http headers, rather than their existence

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2044 Resolve yes, and change the
      text to say "*values* of User Agent and Accept headers"

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2044 Resolve yes, and change the
      text to say "*values* of User Agent and Accecpt headers", and
      clarify that we do not propose guidance for new user agents' use of
      these headers, it is out of scop-e

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2044 Resolve yes, and change the text to say
      "*values* of User Agent and Accecpt headers", and clarify that we do
      not propose guidance for new user agents' use of these headers, it
      is out of scope

      <rob> +1

      LC-2070 - Proxies SHOULD follow standard HTTP procedures - 4.1.4
      Serving Cached Responses

      <dom> current text: "Proxies must act as though a no-transform
      directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request)
      unless they are able positively to determine that the user agent is
      a Web browser. The mechanism by which a proxy recognizes the user
      agent as a Web browser should use evidence from the HTTP request, in
      particular the User-Agent and Accept headers."

      <Zakim> rob, you wanted to suggest "...if they identify the client
      is a web browser"

      Francois: LC-2070, mostly editorial issue.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the
      replacement text: "Proxies should act as though a no-transform
      directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request)
      if they have determined that the request has not been made for
      direct human presentation."

      francois: [ discussion on appropriate tweaking of first para in
      4.1.4 ]

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2070, change para 1 to say "Aside
      from the usual caching procedures defined in RFC 2616, in some
      circumstances ..."

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2070, resolve yes, and change para
      1 to say "Aside from the usual caching procedures defined in RFC
      2616, in some circumstances ..."

      <rob> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <francois> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2070, resolve yes, and change para 1 to say
      "Aside from the usual caching procedures defined in RFC 2616, in
      some circumstances ..."

      LC-2069 - 4.1.3 Treatment of Requesters that are not Web Browsers

      <jo> current text: "Proxies must act as though a no-transform
      directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request)
      unless they are able positively to determine that the user agent is
      a Web browser. The mechanism by which a proxy recognizes the user
      agent as a Web browser should use evidence from the HTTP request, in
      particular the User-Agent and Accept headers."

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the
      replacement text: "Proxies should act as though a no-transform
      directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request)
      if they have determined that the request has not been made for
      direct human presentation."

      SeanP: "Direct human presentation" -- is it really clearer?
      ... liked "web browser".

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the
      replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request a
      transforming proxy should take reasonable steps to determine that
      "*the request is intended for direct human representaion*"

      dka: should we get more specific ?

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the
      replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request a
      transforming proxy should take reasonable steps to determine that
      "*the request is intended for direct human representaion*" and
      remove the second sentence ref User Agent and accept headers.

      <dom> (this means we'll have to amend our response to LC-2044)

      jo: Hard to be normative on this without writing a product spec.

      dka: Not sure that this statement means much.

      SeanP: Original intent of this recommendation was to not transform
      application data, an XHR request from a (potentially) transcoded
      page is a poor example since it might need subsequent transcoding.

      dka: Should we go back to using the word "web-browser".

      jo: Okay, just define what you mean by the word Web...

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved
      yes, with the replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP
      request proxies should take account of the fact that HTTP is used as
      a transport mechanism for many other applications than "Traditional
      Browsing" and that alteration of HTTP requests for those
      applications can cause serious misoperation.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the
      replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request proxies
      ought to take account of the fact that HTTP is used as a transport
      mechanism for many other applications than "Traditional Browsing"
      and that alteration of HTTP requests for those applications can
      cause serious misoperation.

      <francois> +1

      <dom> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      <rob> +1

      adam: Not convinced that this really adds clarity.

      jo: Lets take this action and move on, on the understanding that
      this needs some wordsmithing.

      <jo> ACTION: Jo to word smith resolution on LC-2069 in line with its
      spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner andmore
      comprehensible [recorded in
      [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action01%5d

      <trackbot> Created ACTION-865 - Word smith resolution on LC-2069 in
      line with its spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner
      andmore comprehensible [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27].

      <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2044, resolution on LC-2069
      removes the part that required clarification, resolve partial, we
      won't talk about "use of evidence"

      <jo> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <francois> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text:
      Before altering aspects of an HTTP request proxies ought to take
      account of the fact that HTTP is used as a transport mechanism for
      many other applications than "Traditional Browsing" and that
      alteration of HTTP requests for those applications can cause serious
      misoperation.

      RESOLUTION: re LC-2044, resolution on LC-2069 removes the part that
      required clarification, resolve partial, we won't talk about "use of
      evidence"

      LC-2003 - whitelists - 4.1 Proxy Forwarding of Requests

      francois: Do we want to have this conversation or postpone.

      jo: Couple of points: whitelist / blacklist aren't good words.
      ... Important that we don't make supositions on the internal working
      of transforming proxies...
      ... Make a note that we don't refer to whitelist / blacklist for the
      following reasons, etc.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Make a note about the reasons for not
      referring to lists, of whatever hue, because the preumption about
      the internal operation of proxies is not in scope, as far as we are
      concenred these are "black boxes"

      <DKA> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      <francois> +1

      <rob> +1

      RESOLUTION: Make a note about the reasons for not referring to
      lists, of whatever hue, because the preumption about the internal
      operation of proxies is not in scope, as far as we are concenred
      these are "black boxes"

      <jo> ACTION: Jo to include text referencing resolution to LC-2003
      [recorded in
      [44]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action02%5d

      <trackbot> Created ACTION-866 - Include text referencing resolution
      to LC-2003 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27].

      <francois> Above resolution was for LC-2003, for which we resolve
      no.

      LC-1996 et al - 4.1.5 Alteration of HTTP Header Values

      francois: Discussing which headers the proxy may reasonably change.
      We have a list of such headers, and have found no need to remove any
      headers (except possibly UAProf). We haven't found significant
      problems with changing the accept-headers since not generally used
      to identify device...
      ... Need to change User-Agent / UAProf because of long-tail of
      legacy Web pages... Should we send original headers in X-Device-*?
      Is there a need? And are we allowed to define new headers in our
      document?

      <Zakim> jo, you wanted to respond to francois's eloquent peroration

      jo: Whilst I almost agree with everything francois has said, two
      issues...
      ... Don't believe we are inventing new headers (X-Device-*) since
      they are already in use, just not written down.
      ... If a content provider was previously returning a 406 to mobile
      user-agents but changes to support them, it needs the original
      device headers so it can tell the proxy to stop transforming.

      francois: Vary header could answer this need.

      <Zakim> jo, you wanted to give another good reasonwhy they should be
      there

      dka: If we don't specify what the header is then we are not
      providing such a good service than if we define it.

      <dom> [at least one reason for having the X-Device-* headers is
      statistics gathering]

      francois: Sure, but all we need is a flag ("There was a
      transformation") that the content provider can respond to and
      request the original request.

      <dom> [jo's making my point; how smart of him]

      jo: If original device user-agent is not available then there will
      be no log data indicating a need for a mobile device.

      rob: Original headers may expedite engineers making quick fixes.

      francois: The statistics argument is pretty convincing.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Don't change anything and say
      "no" to all the LC comments on this point (Francois to determine
      wich).

      <dom> [hmm... but aren't they other headers that *need* to be
      modified?
      [45]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.3 ]

      [45] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.3

      francois: Some LC comments say that the current version makes it too
      easy for CT-proxy providers to find an excuse change headers...
      Should we split headers into two groups? Changing accept-headers
      being less serious than UAProf, etc.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is
      but is reinforced by saying the only acceptable headers to change
      are User Agent and Accept and not to delete headers

      <dom> [ e.g. "From"]

      francois: Fine with this, but don't think it addresses concerns.

      jo: What people are concerned with is that headers be removed that a
      content-provider was relying from... Suggest that whatever the proxy
      does, it should be possible to reconstruct the original request.

      SeanP: But what about the case where an operator / gateway adds a
      header that gets removed?

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is
      but is reinforced by saying the only acceptable headers to change
      are User Agent and Accept and not to delete headers the point being
      that by using X-Device plus headers that are present all headers the
      were sent by the UA and their values can be reconstructed by the
      server

      <francois> [46]LC-2046 on HTTP header deletion

      [46]
      http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is
      but is reinforced by saying the only acceptable headers to change
      are User Agent and Accept(-*) and not to delete headers the point
      being that by using X-Device plus headers that are present all
      headers the were sent by the UA and their values can be
      reconstructed by the server

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is
      but is reinforced by saying that the CT proxy SHOULD NOT change
      headers and values other than User Agent and Accept(-*), MUST NOT
      delete headers and it MUST be psosible for the server to reconstruct
      the original UA originated headers by using X-Device etc.

      <rob> +1

      <francois> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      <DKA> +1

      +1

      <nacho> concur (+0)

      RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is but is
      reinforced by saying that the CT proxy SHOULD NOT change headers and
      values other than User Agent and Accept(-*), MUST NOT delete headers
      and it MUST be psosible for the server to reconstruct the original
      UA originated headers by using X-Device etc.

      LC-2074 - profiling HTTP, idempotency of GET requests - 4.1.5.1 Content
      Tasting

      francois: not everyone knows about this. I am fine with the text. It
      is a BP that we advise to do.

      dom: we are saying http is nice but people may not handle it
      correctly.

      francois: We want to downgrade the normative statement to a note

      jo: sometimes you have to issue a get request
      ... then there should be an intermediary page

      dom: it is nice advice to give, but it is something we want CT
      proxies to evaluate?

      jo: some are doing this routinely

      francois: why don't we switch it back to informative only..the whole
      document

      dka: I am going to shoot myself

      francois: it is not the core of the problem at stake

      jo: I think it is important based on the adverse reactions
      ... people are sensitive to this and we should acknowledge this

      francois: any objections to leaving it as is?

      dka: in essence that is what we should do

      <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2074, resolve no, this is a
      best practice we recommend to CT-proxies.

      <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2074, resolve no. Based on
      our experience and feedback from servers whose operators take strong
      exception to this practice, we think it's reasonable to advise
      CT-proxies operators of this situation

      <jo> +1

      <francois> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      <rob> +1

      RESOLUTION: re. LC-2074, resolve no. Based on our experience and
      feedback from servers whose operators take strong exception to this
      practice, we think it's reasonable to advise CT-proxies operators of
      this situation

      LC-2037 - POST retry - 4.1.5.2 Avoiding "Request Unacceptable"
      Responses

      francois: this is about what is identified as unacceptable responses
      ... a CT proxy cannot differentiate here
      ... i think we should keep the text and explain why we cannot
      specify the heuristics

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2037 yes, we have removed PUT
      partly in response to your comment

      <francois> +1

      <rob> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2037 yes, we have removed PUT partly in response
      to your comment

      [this was two part comment....thus the two resolutions]

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2037 ref retrying POSTs, no, we
      agree that it shouldnot be necessary to point this out, but sadly it
      is

      <SeanP> +1

      <francois> +1

      <rob> +1

      LC-2075 - Heuristics for 200 rejected responses - 4.1.5.2 Avoiding
      "Request Unacceptable" Responses

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2075 differences in behaviour: the
      internal operation of the proxy is not open to our specification, we
      need to point out to CT proxies that 406 responses are not the only
      way in which content proivders signal that they can't or won't
      handle a request

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2075 differences in behaviour: the
      internal operation of the proxy is not open to our specification, we
      need to point out to CT proxies that in practice 406 responses are
      not the only way in which content proivders signal that they can't
      or won't handle a request, though we do say that this is the
      preferred way of them doing so

      <SeanP> +1

      <jo> +1

      <francois> +1

      +1

      <rob> +1

      <dom> +0.1

      RESOLUTION: LC-2075 differences in behaviour: the internal operation
      of the proxy is not open to our specification, we need to point out
      to CT proxies that in practice 406 responses are not the only way in
      which content proivders signal that they can't or won't handle a
      request, though we do say that this is the preferred way of them
      doing so

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2075, we have changed the text to
      refer only to POST and we acknowledge that this should not need
      restatement from RFC 2616 but we are aware of this kind of
      misoperation "in the wild"

      <SeanP> +1

      <francois> +1

      <jo> +1

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2075, we have changed the text to refer only to
      POST and we acknowledge that this should not need restatement from
      RFC 2616 but we are aware of this kind of misoperation "in the wild"

      break and discussing dinner arrangements

      LC-2076, LC-2039 - same headers for all resources - 4.1.5.4 Sequence of
      Requests

      francois: the purpose of the text is to say that CT proxies need to
      behave consistently and the text needs clarification
      ... you don't have to send the same headers if you are requesting an
      embedded resource

      <dom> [I think "form part of a representation" is what makes the
      usage of the word "representation" confusing]

      jo: i recall we received many comments on basic tests noting that
      the content negotiation depends on the headers

      <dom> [part of a representation is a sequence of bytes, not a
      stylesheet or an image]

      jo: you could specifiy specific headers for each resource
      ... in practice that not what browser do or servers implement

      dom: firefox actually does that

      jo: relying on this is unwise
      ... it is relatively common for adaptation solution to regard
      headers in the whole rather than in the part
      ... we are observing an in practice best practice

      dom: mark is saying that giving the advice on a per header basis
      than the partial header is better
      ... content adaptation solutions are likely to use that

      jo: we not allowing changes to the UAProf header

      francois: just the UA header

      <DKA> ack

      <Zakim> dom, you wanted to note ambiguity of "part of a
      representation"

      dom: use of the term representation is confusing, from Mark. we need
      to change that.
      ... is used to render the represenation

      francois: I think we removed that wording from the latest draft of
      Basic Tests

      Sean: could we say something like embedded resources?

      dom: we can reformulate this later

      jo: we use "vital to the rendering of that resource"
      ... i am happy we have not used represenation incorrectly

      <jo> use the term "included resources" per the definition mobileOK
      Basic Tests

      SeanP: if you don't change the headers of the top level document you
      should not change them for the images...is what we are saying

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2076 - yes, we will change the sue
      of the word representation and use something like "included
      resources"

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2076 - yes, we will change the use
      of the word representation and use something like "included
      resources"

      <SeanP> +1

      <francois> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <rob> +1

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2076 - yes, we will change the use of the word
      representation and use something like "included resources"

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2039 and LC-2076: Yes, we will
      clarify that we are talking about keeping the User Agent Header
      consistent

      <SeanP> +1

      <francois> +1

      <dom> +1

      <rob> +1

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2039 and LC-2076: Yes, we will clarify that we
      are talking about keeping the User Agent Header consistent

      <DKA> +1

      LC-2079, LC-2041, LC-2080 - 4.2.1 Use of HTTP 406 Status - 4.2.2 Server
      Origination of Cache-Control: no-transform

      francois: section 4.2 will be changed from normative to informative

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2079, yes, we intend to move server
      behaviour into a non-normative section and point out that servers
      may wish to respond with no-transform as this respects the intention
      of the requester

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2041, LC-2080 and LC-2079, yes, we
      intend to move server behaviour into a non-normative section and
      point out that servers may wish to respond with no-transform if they
      think that this respects the intention of the requester and that for
      the sake of clarity use of 406 is clearer than using a default
      representation using 200 and the text "your browser is not
      supported"

      <rob> +1

      dom: I don't think this responds to LC-2080 or LC-2041

      jo: I think it does

      dom: are we still mentioning cache control?

      francois: we are talking about cache control in the request not to
      transform

      <SeanP> +1

      jo: I can't see a way around this. It is reasonable for us to say if
      there is a request not to transform the server can ...?

      francois: we moving to non normative...

      <francois> +1

      <DKA> +1

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2041, LC-2080 and LC-2079, yes, we intend to move
      server behaviour into a non-normative section and point out that
      servers may wish to respond with no-transform if they think that
      this respects the intention of the requester and that for the sake
      of clarity use of 406 is clearer than using a default representation
      using 200 and the text "your browser is not supported"

      LC-2045 - Respect of RFC2616 - 4.2.2 Server Origination of
      Cache-Control: no-transform

      francois: it is about restating RFC HTTP
      ... we should not. we could use a link

      jo: we repeat for emphasis
      ... in cases for violation happens

      francois: but why do we repeat here and not in other sections?

      SeanP: he asks if we really mean it

      jo: then this is in the wrong section. This is about server
      behavior.

      francois: into which section should it go?
      ... 4.1.2 or 4.3.1

      <dom> (I updated the comment to reflect that it really is about
      4.3.1)

      francois: we already have some text then....we may have to clarify
      this as we has some comment on it

      SeanP: we are saying it twice already..

      jo: we could insert a note for emphasis

      francois: or put down a link

      jo: to 13.5.2

      dka: why don't you want to put in text to emphasize?

      jo: it can't get much clearer than what we have

      dka: why is it wrong to repeat?

      jo: we don't want to restate http

      dka: you are making an assumption that somebody would read http spec

      <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2045, resolve partial,
      comment actually applies to 4.3.1 where it is emphasized that
      proxies MUST behave "transparently" with a link to the definition
      that contains links to sections 13.5.2 and 14.9.5 of RFC2616

      jo: you would have to be

      <dom> (should we actually provide as an appendix with all the
      conformance requirements of http that would be relevant to a content
      transformation proxy?)

      <jo> [dom is welcome to make a contribution along those lines]

      <SeanP> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <francois> +1

      RESOLUTION: re. LC-2045, resolve partial, comment actually applies
      to 4.3.1 where it is emphasized that proxies MUST behave
      "transparently" with a link to the definition that contains links to
      sections 13.5.2 and 14.9.5 of RFC2616

      break for lunch reconvene 1:30

      <francois> ACTION: daoust to look into an appendix with relevant
      normative statements of RFC2616 and report back to the group.
      [recorded in
      [47]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action03%5d

      <trackbot> Created ACTION-867 - Look into an appendix with relevant
      normative statements of RFC2616 and report back to the group. [on
      François Daoust - due 2008-10-27].

      <jo> [break for lunch]

      LC-2081 - About not basing actions on knowledge - 4.2.3.1 Use of Vary
      HTTP header

      francois: text is not clear enough

      <DKA> Jo: "If your content isn't consistent with the header that
      you're sending then you shouldn't send it"

      seanP: it's only informative

      dom: we agreed to remove normative burdens on origin servers

      DKA: so do we need this at all?

      jeffs: but if I need to ask someone what this means then it's not
      useful

      dka: what's the other comment on this section?

      francois: LC-2008 is already resolved
      ... and that's not the problem here with LC-2081

      dka: as part of this informationizationing is the proposal to remove
      the second para of 4.2.3.1?

      jo: no
      ... say "don't misrepresent your content"

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change second second para of 4.2.3.1 to
      say "don't misrepresent your content, even if you think that will
      avoid it being transformed"

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change second second para of 4.2.3.1 to
      say "don't systematically misrepresent your content, even if you
      think that will avoid it being transformed"

      <SeanP> +1

      +1

      <jeffs> +1

      <francois> +1

      RESOLUTION: Change second second para of 4.2.3.1 to say "don't
      systematically misrepresent your content, even if you think that
      will avoid it being transformed"

      <dom> re TAG response to our request for comments,
      [48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/09-minutes#item03 " Norm was
      to review this and see if it was something we needed to take a look
      at. [...] Dan moved it to be due next week, I'll endeavor to review
      it before then"

      [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/09-minutes#item03

      LC-2009, LC-2010, LC-2011 - Use of the link element - 4.2.3.2
      Indication of intended presentation media type of presentation

      francois: we should postpone this discussion until we get a response
      from TAG

      <dom> [this also was on the agenda for Oct 16, but haven't found the
      minutes of that meeting
      [49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Oct/0088.html ]

      [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Oct/0088.html

      francois: what is clear is that the current text is based on an
      incorrect assertion

      <dom> [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-tagmem-minutes.html doesn't
      have any mention of CT guidelines afaict

      [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-tagmem-minutes.html

      <dom> [and no update on
      [51]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/173 , TAG's
      relation action item ]

      [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/173

      francois: and the text will need to change when we have TAG's advice

      dom: Personally I don't think we should wait for TAG's response - we
      can close the issue now

      jo: let's go back to the LC-2010 in question

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is void and thereby will be
      ignored.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is a reasonable comment but is
      now overtaken by events.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is a reasonable comment but is
      now overtaken by events - namely that we don't propose to use
      fragment identifiers as a method to achieve this anymore. yada yada

      <francois> +1

      +1

      <SeanP> +1

      <jeffs> +1 (esp the yadayada part)

      RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is a reasonable comment but is now overtaken by
      events - namely that we don't propose to use fragment identifiers as
      a method to achieve this anymore.

      jo: this is saying "if you have a non-local reference you may or may
      not be referring to this instance"

      <dom> " When a URI reference refers to a URI that is, aside from its
      fragment component (if any), identical to the base URI (Section
      5.1), that reference is called a "same-document" reference. The most
      frequent

      <dom> examples of same-document references are relative references
      that are empty or include only the number sign ("#") separator
      followed by a fragment identifier"

      francois: the RFC explains how to construct a local reference

      <dom> section 4.4, rfc 3986

      <dom> (available e.g. [52]http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3986.html )

      [52] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3986.html

      francois: even if you have an absolute URI to the same document you
      can determine that it is in fact a local URI

      <dom> The base URI of a reference can be established in one of four
      ways, discussed below in order of precedence: Base URI Embedded in
      Content, Base URI from the Encapsulating Entity, Base URI from the
      Retrieval URI, Default Base URI

      <dom> 5.1 in RFC 3986

      <jo> [53]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.4

      [53] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.4

      <dom> [54]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1.3

      [54] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1.3

      <jo> [55]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1

      [55] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1

      <dom> " If no base URI is embedded and the representation is not
      encapsulated

      <dom> within some other entity, then, if a URI was used to retrieve
      the

      <dom> representation, that URI shall be considered the base URI.
      Note that

      <dom> if the retrieval was the result of a redirected request, the
      last URI

      <dom> used (i.e., the URI that resulted in the actual retrieval of
      the

      <dom> representation) is the base URI.

      <dom> "

      <dom> " Normalization of the base and target URIs prior to their
      comparison,

      <dom> as described in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, is allowed but
      rarely

      <dom> performed in practice. Normalization may increase the set of
      same-

      <dom> document references, which may be of benefit to some caching

      <dom> applications."

      jo: we are trying to say "this doccument is formatted for a mobile"
      ... we are also saying that content is available for media screen at
      this URI as well
      ... and that's not possible to do with the <link rel="alternate">
      mechanism

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2011 in 4.2.3.2 (and elsewhere as
      suits clarity and editorial convenience) at para 3 and the following
      note. Make it clear that where more than one representation is
      available from the same URI this ought to be represented by using a
      Vary header and can't be represented using <link>. In other cases
      the link header should be used to reference alternative
      representations

      <jo> (i.e. where the Base URI, ref RFC 3986 secs 5.5 and 5.1 does
      not indicate a same document reference)

      <francois> +1

      <dom> +1

      <DKA> +1 to the sentiment but I don't like using the word "ought"

      <SeanP> +1 (although I think it is complicated enough that it will
      be rarely used)

      <jeffs> + and agree w DKA

      <jo> ought = Should (non normative, no relation to RFC 2119)

      <Kai> +1

      +1

      <dom> [latest link header in http draft, to make sure to derail the
      discussion
      [56]http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02.tx
      t ]

      [56] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02.txt

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2011 in 4.2.3.2 (and elsewhere as suits clarity
      and editorial convenience) at para 3 and the following note. Make it
      clear that where more than one representation is available from the
      same URI this ought to be represented by using a Vary header and
      can't be represented using <link rel="alternate">. In other cases
      the link header should be used to reference alternative
      representations (i.e. where the Base URI, ref RFC 3986 secs 5.5 and
      5.1 does not indicate a same document reference)

      and 5.1 does not indicate a same document reference)

      <dom> [Jo notes that it doesn't feature the equivalent of the
      "media" attribute in html]

      <jo> [jo note that the draft-nottingham etc. do not provide a
      machanism to represent the equivant of media attribute]

      francois: and we won't mention fragment identifiers because it's not
      relevant

      <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2009, resolve yes,
      acknowledge RFC3986 section 4.4 and remove the part on fragment
      identifiers

      <DKA> +1

      <francois> +1

      <SeanP> +1

      +1

      RESOLUTION: re. LC-2009, resolve yes, acknowledge RFC3986 section
      4.4 and remove the part on fragment identifiers

      <jeffs> +1

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, we do not want
      to step

      LC-2020 - Copyright - 4.3 Proxy forwarding of response to user agent

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, we do not want
      to step into legal matters.

      Francois: If the meta Copyright tag, then the page must not be
      reformatted.

      DKA: Do we need to consider this since you are recommending that we
      resolve no.

      <rob> +1

      DOM: I think the comment is bogus.

      Jo: We need to say the copyright of the material is not affected by
      the copyright meta tag.
      ... Point is valid, however.

      DKA: This stuff is up to the lawyers do decide.

      <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, the
      presence or absence of a Copyright is not a clear indication of the
      rights associated with the page

      +1

      <DKA> +1

      RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, the presence or absence of a
      Copyright is not a clear indication of the rights associated with
      the page

      <jeffs> +1

      LC-2082, LC-2042 - Cascading proxies - 4.3.2 Receipt of Warning: 214
      Transformation Applied

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2082, LC-2042, resolve no,
      cascading proxies are not as easy as they seem, and the "MUST NOT"
      only applies to "CT" proxies, not proxies in general.

      Francois: What we say in 4.3.2, we say if there is a Warning header,
      then proxies should not perform transformation. We decided that
      having 2 cascading CT proxies was out of scope.

      Dom: But 4.3.2 doesn't say it is out of scope.

      Francois: Right.

      Jo: The point of this section is to say that if the content goes
      thru a CT proxy then goes through another one, it can be a problem.

      Dom: Doesn't that rule out server side transformation.

      Jo: No. Since server-side transformation is out of scope.

      Francois: But we are saying is that multiple CT proxies are out of
      scope, but we are addressing it.

      Jo: No we are saying server side transformation is out of scope, not
      multiple CT proxies.

      Francois: We say earlier in the document that we don't discuss
      multiple CT proxies in detail.
      ... These guide lines only apply to CT proxies, not all proxies.

      DKA: A real example from Vodafone. There was content that was
      transformed by Yahoo, then transformed again by Novarra. This caused
      a problem since they had no knowledge of each other.

      Kai: But aren't we just legislating that people shouldn't make
      mistakes.

      Dom: If a CT proxy transforms to mobile friendly state, why couldn't
      another proxy transform it again.

      DKA: We're trying to get CPs to add logic to make their content to
      work well on mobile devices.

      Kai: By saying this you are making it difficult to perform a two
      step process.

      Jo: Why not leave out the Warning header if you want to do that.

      Dom: We are adding a meaning to the Warning header that is not in
      the original specification.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT LC-2082, LC2042: resolve_yes and
      remove 4.3.2

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT LC-2082, LC2042: resolve_yes and
      remove 4.3.2 replace with a section noting that intermediate proxies
      should send no-transform if they want to inhibit further
      transformation

      <francois> +1

      <jeffs> +1

      +1

      <Kai> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <rob> +1

      RESOLUTION: WRT LC-2082, LC2042: resolve_yes and remove 4.3.2
      replace with a section noting that intermediate proxies should send
      no-transform if they want to inhibit further transformation

      LC-2083 - Sniffing rejected responses - 4.3.3 Server Rejection of HTTP
      Request

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2083, resolve partial, we are
      addressing legacy content, there is no way to be more precise.
      Remove the part on "servers that do not implement this
      Recommendation".

      Francois: We should resolve "No" since we can't be more precise
      because we are dealing with legacy content.

      DKA: We should make it clear that this kind thing is what
      differentiates CT proxies.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2083, no, it is an important part
      of the mechanism described in 4.1.5 so has to be here in some form.
      We don't mean to propose this as a fail safe mechanism, we merely
      mean to indicate that CT proxies may need to employ heuristics to
      provide an improved service for their users. Remove reference to
      conforming servers.

      <francois> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <jeffs> +1

      +1

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2083, no, it is an important part of the
      mechanism described in 4.1.5 so has to be here in some form. We
      don't mean to propose this as a fail safe mechanism, we merely mean
      to indicate that CT proxies may need to employ heuristics to provide
      an improved service for their users. Remove reference to conforming
      servers.

      LC-2084 - purpose of behavior - 4.3.4 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial, and add a
      link back to 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case.

      Francois: Use case is in 4.1.5.2 which is already there.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve no since ample
      reasoning is provided.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve no since ample
      reasoning is provided (link to 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case).

      +1

      Jo: This is a failsafe mechanism.

      Francois: What I had in mind is that the reference to 4.1.5.2 should
      be at the beginning of the sentence.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial since this is
      part of the fail safe mechanism defined in 4.1.5.2 that explains the
      use case. Move reference to 4.1.5.2 earlier int he sentence and
      simplify wording

      <DKA> +1

      <DKA> -1

      <francois> +1

      <DKA> �1

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial since this is
      part of the fail safe mechanism defined in 4.1.5.2 that explains the
      use case. Move reference to 4.1.5.2 earlier int he sentence and
      simplify wording, add reference to example kindly to be re-provided
      by Francois

      <francois> +1

      <DKA> +1

      <rob> +1

      <dom> +1

      <jeffs> +1

      RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial since this is part of the
      fail safe mechanism defined in 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case.
      Move reference to 4.1.5.2 earlier int he sentence and simplify
      wording, add reference to example kindly to be re-provided by
      Francois

      LC-1998 - No transformation for application/xhtml+xml - 4.3.6 Proxy
      Decision to Transform

      Francois: Most CP's misread this section.
      ... Most of the comments are to be comprehensive on the heuristics,
      but we can't do that.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no since lots of
      non-mobile web pages actually send xhtml+xml mime type.

      Francois: This may be true for the time being, but we can't really
      do this.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no since lots of
      non-mobile web pages actually send xhtml+xml mime type.

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS: Remove the examples of mobile-specifc
      doctypes in 4.3.6 and remain silent on this issue...

      Jo: We didn't put in content types for good reasons. We probably
      should remove the lists of doc types.

      Francois: I think it is good to have some examples, but to just say
      they are examples.

      Dom: Having examples of heuristics makes it seem like we are
      endorsing them.

      Jo: This is kind of my point.

      DKA: I think some examples are good.

      Jeff: I would really object to removing examples.

      DKA: You are limiting the scope of the document if you are limiting
      to implementors of CT proxies.

      Jo: Our job is to be clear, not discoursive (?).

      Jeff: I think the audience should also be people developing the
      content, so the examples are useful.

      DKA: We need to be clear that these are examples. We are trying to
      be responsive to the community that made these comments.

      Dom: By increasing the number of examples, we don't really do any
      service.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove examples of heuristics from the
      main run of text and include Appendices to list in a *non-endorsed*
      way lists of stuff that other people have used but are No-endorsed
      by us, and did I mentionthat they are not endorsed

      Francois: Why don't we move the examples to an appendix?

      <jeffs> +1

      <rob> +1

      +1

      RESOLUTION: Remove examples of heuristics from the main run of text
      and include Appendices to list in a *non-endorsed* way lists of
      stuff that other people have used but are No-endorsed by us, and did
      I mentionthat they are not endorsed

      <DKA> +1 with the addition of some of the additional doctypes listed
      by the feedback...

      <jeffs> +1

      <DKA> (at editor's discression)

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no since lots of
      non-mobile web pages actually send xhtml+xml mime type.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no and point out to
      commenter that this assumption is unsafe without other supporting
      evidence.

      +1

      <francois> +1

      <rob> +1

      RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no and point out to commenter that
      this assumption is unsafe without other supporting evidence.

      <jeffs> +1

      LC-1999

      <dom> "increase your page size!"

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolve comenter and point out to
      commenter that size on its own is unsafe as an indicator of mobile
      friendlines e.g. content with emdedded flash

      +1

      <francois> +1

      <rob> +1

      PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolve comenter and point out to commenter
      that size on its own is unsafe as an idicator of mobile friendlines
      e.gf. content with emdedded flash

      <jeffs> +1 s/comenter/commenter

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-1999 Resolve no commenter and point
      out to commenter that size on its own is unsafe as an indicator of
      mobile friendlines e.g content with embedded flash

      <DKA> +1

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-1999 Resolve no commenter and point out to
      commenter that size on its own is unsafe as an indicator of mobile
      friendlines e.g content with embedded flash

      LC-2048, LC-2002, LC-2052, LC-2021 - Heuristics - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision
      to Transform

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2048 and LC-2002, LC-2052 and
      LC-2021, resolve partial, and say that we include these examples as
      non-endorsed heuristics in the non endorsed heuristics appendi

      <DKA> +1

      <francois> +1

      +1

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2048 and LC-2002, LC-2052 and LC-2021, resolve
      partial, and say that we include these examples as non-endorsed
      heuristics in the non endorsed heuristics appendix

      <jeffs> +1

      LC-2022 - i-mode content - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform

      Francois: Put this one separate in case we missed something. I don't
      think we did.

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2022 resolve partial, we agree that
      this was not included and have added it as a non-endorsed heuristic
      in the relevant appendix

      +1

      <francois> +1

      <DKA> +1

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2022 resolve partial, we agree that this was not
      included and have added it as a non-endorsed heuristic in the
      relevant appendix

      <jo> x-zillon/tharg

      LC-2090, LC-2000 - No extra content without the consent of the content
      owner - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform

      Francois: I think this is out of scope. It's a legal matter

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2090 and LC-2000, resolve no, other
      than to note that adding extra content is forbidden where
      no-transform is present

      +1

      <rob> +1

      <jeffs> +1

      Rigo: There should be a way to keep CT proxies from transforming.

      Francois: There is another point in the comment where the CT proxy
      could add an ad.

      Jo: If I put a copyright notice on my content, but no no-transform,
      the commenters will say we are not doing our job. Should just
      copyright notice be necessary?

      Rigo: No. Copyright notice is American disease. Even in U.S.
      copyright notice is not necessary anymore.
      ... Even if you assert your copyright and put your content on the
      web, it is implicit statement that you want people to read my stuff.
      This means you need to live with what is socially adequate in the
      medium.
      ... The copyright holder needs to indicate that the he/she wants to
      opt out of this kind of thing.
      ... <Introduces self>

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2090 and LC-2000, resolve no, other
      than to note that adding extra content is forbidden where
      no-transform is present and content providers should use this if
      they want to be sure their content is not added to

      <francois> +1

      <rob> +1

      <DKA> +1

      +1

      <Kai> +1

      <jeffs> +1

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2090 and LC-2000, resolve no, other than to note
      that adding extra content is forbidden where no-transform is present
      and content providers should use this if they want to be sure their
      content is not added to

      <jeffs> +1

      <jo> [break]

      LC-2013 - meta http-equiv - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform

      next last-call comment: 2013

      <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2013, resolve yes, and
      clarify that we mean

      <francois> "in the absence of a Vary HTTP header and in the absence
      of a

      <francois> no-transform directive defined at the HTTP level or using
      a meta

      <francois> http-equiv element containing Cache-Control:
      no-transform"

      re: meta http-equiv - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform

      francois: this applies to 4.3.1
      ... servers may not take account of content-transformation headers

      dom: headers might have precedent

      is the only reason we do this is for legacy converters? no, servers
      may not have access to content-transformation

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2013 clarify in 4.3.1 and 4.3.6 and
      in other relevant sections that meta http-equiv should be consulted
      if the relevant actual HTTP header is not present

      dom: the only dependable indicator is cache-n-transform directory

      francois: move it to 4.3.1??

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2013, resolve yes, clarify in 4.3.1
      and 4.3.6 and in other relevant sections that meta http-equiv should
      be consulted if the relevant actual HTTP header is not present

      <francois> +1

      <dom> +1

      +1

      <DKA> +1

      RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2013, resolve yes, clarify in 4.3.1 and 4.3.6 and
      in other relevant sections that meta http-equiv should be consulted
      if the relevant actual HTTP header is not present

      <SeanP> +1

      +1

      LC-2051 - Open Mobile Alliance Standard Transcoding Interface work -
      Appendix A and D

      <dom>
      [57]http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/sti_
      v10.aspx

      [57]
      http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/sti_v10.aspx

      <dom> [58]Standard Transcoding Interface

      [58]
      http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/sti_v10.aspx

      dka: let us not put dependencies behind this, so we can finalize the
      document

      francois: will review the document and propose edits

      <dom>
      [59]http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/docs
      /CopyrightClick.aspx?pck=STI&file=V1_0-20050607-C/OMA-ERELD-STI-V1_0
      -20050607-C.pdf

      [59]
      http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/docs/CopyrightClick.aspx?pck=STI&file=V1_0-20050607-C/OMA-ERELD-STI-V1_0-20050607-C.pdf

      <francois> ACTION: LC-2051, daoust to review OMA STI to see if
      there's something relevant for CT [recorded in
      [60]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action04%5d

      <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - LC-2051,

      <francois> ACTION: daoust to review OMA STI to see if there's
      something relevant for CT for LC-2051 [recorded in
      [61]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action05%5d

      <trackbot> Created ACTION-868 - Review OMA STI to see if there's
      something relevant for CT for LC-2051 [on François Daoust - due
      2008-10-27].

      LC-1995 - About "recent" HTTP "drafts" - Appendix D.2

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1995, resolve yes, and replace
      "recent draft of HTTP" by "HTTP 1/1"

      LC-1995 - About "recent" HTTP "drafts" - Appendix D.2

      <dom> [should we link to mark nottingham's draft?]

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1995, resolve yes, and replace
      "recent draft of HTTP" by "HTTP /1.1"

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1995, resolve yes, and replace
      "recent draft of HTTP" by "HTTP/1.1"

      <SeanP> +1

      +1

      <DKA> +1

      LC-2047 - Cascading proxies - Appendix D.4 Inter Proxy Communication

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve no, and point out a
      specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter

      francois: long comment about how to resolve cascading proxies case
      ... resolution is not easy in practice
      ... with cascading proxies, cannot control the chain

      jo: key point: let us define our terms
      ... I interpret "upstream" & "downstream" differently than common
      parlance

      dka: think of the stream as between the server and the client...
      therefore upstream points to server and downstream points to client

      jo: salmon metaphor

      francois: the upstream proxy cannot transform when there is a
      downstream proxy

      jo: that is not what we do
      ... we do not regard downstream proxies as user agents in their own
      right
      ... comment is pointing out the combination of proxies makes a
      non-user-agent
      ... therefore must be passed on without transformation

      dom & francois: the results are the same

      dom: saying "do as if downstream proxy is not a user agent"

      francois: there is no reason to say the downsteam proxy has
      precedence over the upstream one

      dka: the upstream proxy knows more about the content

      francois: the first part is saying we cannot choose which has
      precedence
      ... the point is about the appendix

      jo: not only about the appendix

      <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Hi Shadi

      +1

      discussion: is the proxy part of the server or not?

      jo: at whiteboard & drawing things
      ... whatever comes out of the content provider's proxy may or may
      not remain the same as it moves through intermediate proxies

      dom & jo: interchange over sould be used vs could be used

      jo: can of worms: the transformers in the middle

      dom: we should say this is not as simple as it looks and we are
      looking for a way to state the problem & solution simply

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve no, and point out a
      specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter

      jo: add proxies should not add cache-control header

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve partial, and point
      out a specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter
      and add CT proxies should not add no-transform directive on upstream
      request.

      jo: when it passes through the network, you should not add
      cache-control header
      ... if anybody is doing transformation, it should be the one closest
      to the owner of what is being requested

      jo & francois: discussion of what we have said in past

      <dom> LC-2047.a

      discussion: inter-relationships between the 3 parts of the
      comment/proposal

      rob: almost impossible to tell who has done what in chain of proxies
      along path from client (requester) to server (responder)

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the
      CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like
      any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't
      alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document

      jo: if you are a conforming proxy and receive a request, what should
      you do?

      jo & dom: discussion of whether altered headers result or not

      <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve partial, and point
      out a specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter.

      dka: should we include this recommendation? jo: already prohibited

      jo: do we want to say not to change the value of the warning itself?

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the
      CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like
      any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't
      alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document b. we
      think that this is defined in HTTP and don't need to elaborate on it
      unless there are specific examples of misoperation that we can...

      <jo> ...refer to and c) we disagree and think that this is very
      complex and requires a substantial use case analysis to achieve a
      complete understanding of this, and we also think that a more
      complex HTTP vocabulary is required to achieve useful results.

      dka: concern that a lot of thought went into these comments & we may
      not be addressing them thoroughly

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the
      CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like
      any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't
      alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document

      +1

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part b. we think that this is
      defined in HTTP and don't need to elaborate on it unless there are
      specific examples of misoperation that we can refer to

      discussion: simplify to say content transformers must be
      transparent??
      ... concern over variability of possible cases

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part c. we disagree and think
      that this is very complex and requires a substantial use case
      analysis to achieve a complete understanding. We think that a more
      complex HTTP vocabulary for inter proxy operation is likely to be
      required to achieve useful results, and we are not chartered to
      create technology of that kind

      <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add a section with a diagram explaining
      which proxies are in scope

      discussion: are there cases where proxy server closest to the client
      should hold forth??

      <DKA> +1 to Jo's proposed resolution triptych

      <dom> isn't it a tetraptych?

      rob: what happens when https on closest to client but not on one
      closest to destination server

      <rob> +1

      <DKA> +1 to the tetraptych then

      <francois> +1 to the tetraptych

      +1 to the tetraptych

      <SeanP> +1 to all of them

      <francois> +1 to cheeseptych

      <dom>
      [62]http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html

      [62] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html

      PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the CT
      proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like any
      other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't alter
      it's prescibed behaviour according to this document

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the CT proxy as
      being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like any other.
      Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't alter it's
      prescibed behaviour according to this document

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part b. we think that this is defined in
      HTTP and don't need to elaborate on it unless there are specific
      examples of misoperation that we can refer to

      RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part c. we disagree and think that this is
      very complex and requires a substantial use case analysis to achieve
      a complete understanding. We think that a more complex HTTP
      vocabulary for inter proxy operation is likely to be required to
      achieve useful results, and we are not chartered t<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • Jose Alberto Fernandez
      The problem here is that MetaTXT only talks about top level entry points. It does not talk about the site. You may have multiple separate mobile sections on
      Message 215 of 215 , Nov 21, 2008
        The problem here is that MetaTXT only talks about top level entry
        points. It does not talk about the site.

        You may have multiple separate mobile sections on your site (for
        different products, for example) and multiple separate websites.

        I do not see any syntax here on how to express such a thing. Please
        think of a blog site with many blogs of different people. You cannot
        simply force everyone to organize their site on separate unique
        hierarchies based on channel.

        That is up to the content provider to organize in the best way for its
        own business, not to be forced one way or another.

        The beauty of robots.txt is that it does not impose anything on you.
        You can specify one or one hundred top level paths. You can nest allow
        and disallow sections, etc. So the control stays on the content
        provider. I think this is essential.

        Jose Alberto

        --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@...> wrote:
        >
        > Well... it does let you label a part of your site as being mobile -
        > which should be used as a basis for a decision not to transcode, no?
        >
        > On 20 Nov 2008, at 13:18, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
        >
        > > Tom and others,
        > >
        > > Here there is a link to a presentation of MetaTXT from September this
        > > year. Please judge by yourselves.
        > >
        > > http://www.visibilitymobile.com/Whitepaper_On_MetaTXT.pdf
        > >
        > > I really do not see how this technology gets any closer to address the
        > > issues we are trying to address (i.e. white-listing sites or portions
        > > of sites).
        > >
        > > Whatever technology we use need to be able to express at least two
        > > things:
        > >
        > > - You are "allowed" to transcode these urls.
        > > - You are "not allowed" to transcode these urls.
        > >
        > > As currently defined, MetaTXT is about indicating to search engines
        > > which entry points on a site are geared to which type of device. This
        > > is not the same thing. Actually, taken at face value, it will tell a
        > > TC where to find the "PC" version of the site to transcode, instead of
        > > going to the "mobile" site and no transcode at all.
        > >
        > > I know that like robots.txt this file has an extensible syntax and we
        > > could add a way to say what we need to say, but it it not fit for
        > > purpose as is. The syntax of robots.txt is much more closer to what it
        > > is needed, in my opinion.
        > >
        > > Comments please...
        > >
        > > Jose Alberto
        > >
        > > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Jose
        > > >
        > > > Eduardo's reminded me that there's some posts re MetaTXT and
        > > POWDER on
        > > > the BPWG mailing list , talking about setting up a working group to
        > > > take MetaTXT forward. Might be something to get involved with if you
        > > > see this as more compatible with your transformers.txt idea?
        > > >
        > > > Tom
        > > >
        > > > On 19 Nov 2008, at 19:26, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Well,
        > > > >
        > > > > I said all I wanted to say in this forum already. I am not sure
        > > what
        > > > > else I can do or say. I others can push for this from other
        > > fronts it
        > > > > would be good.
        > > > >
        > > > > But at this point it is more about convincing the TC/Operators.
        > > Or to
        > > > > get pressure from W3C that such arrangements like private
        > > operators
        > > > > controlled white-listing is against the fabric of the internet
        > > and it
        > > > > is an unacceptable solution.
        > > > >
        > > > > Jose Alberto
        > > > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.