ISSUE-255: Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation
the mdot thing
Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
- Raised by:
- Jo Rabin
- Opened on:
- 2008-06-06
- Description:
- Resolutions of CT TF of 13 May: (I wasn't there)
- Mention examination of URIs in the list of heuristics in 4.4
(transformation of the response) and mention SeanP's list (wap.*, m.*,
...) as examples
- Mention examination of URIs also in 4.1.2 (transformation of the
request) to complete the list after "the proxy SHOULD analyze whether it
intends to offer transformation services by referring to:".
The specific list of sub-domains given
m.*
mobile.*
wap.*
*.mobi
<domain>/m/*
<domain/mobile/*
a couple of questions:
i) on the request side, how does the URI requested constitute a heuristic, if we are saying that the headers should not be transformed a) unless the user requests it and b) unless the request is rejected?
ii) on the response side, I think we may mean the URI of the response (i.e. content-location or the result of resolving redirects, rather then the originally requested URI, and if that is what we mean we should say so ...)
Jo
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Content Transformation Guidelines 1m (Rev 13) nearly now all 'ship shape and Bristol fashion' (from jrabin@mtld.mobi on 2008-07-22)
- Content Transformation Guidelines 1m (Rev 13) [was Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1l (Rev 12) and Change List] (from jrabin@mtld.mobi on 2008-07-22)
- RE: Content Transformation Guidelines 1l (Rev 12) and Change List (from SPatterson@Novarra.com on 2008-07-18)
- Content Transformation Guidelines 1l (Rev 12) and Change List (from jrabin@mtld.mobi on 2008-07-11)
- [minutes] BPWG F2F in Sophia, day 1 (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-17)
- Content Transformation Guidelines - preparation for the F2F (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-13)
- [minutes] CT Call Tuesday 10 June 2008 (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-10)
- ISSUE-257 (Is the CT-proxy aware?): Clarification of section 4.1.2 [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-06-10)
- Re: [agenda] CT Call Tuesday 10 June 2008 (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-10)
- RE: Content Transformation 1k - and Change List (from SPatterson@Novarra.com on 2008-06-09)
- Re: Content Transformation 1k - and Change List (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-09)
- RE: ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from BS3131@att.com on 2008-06-06)
- Content Transformation 1k - and Change List (from jrabin@mtld.mobi on 2008-06-06)
- Re: ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-06)
- Re: ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-06)
- Re: ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from jrabin@mtld.mobi on 2008-06-06)
- Re: ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from jrabin@mtld.mobi on 2008-06-06)
- Re: ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-06)
- ISSUE-255 (the mdot thing): Subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-06-06)
Related notes:
For the F2F in Sophia:
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. ISSUE-255, drop mention of examination of URI from 4.1.2 as it's a heuristic to scope rejected 200 responses, detailed in 4.4, and 4.1.2 already precises to examine the response (with a link to 4.4)
- Jo raised the point that a CT-proxy should be allowed to alter the headers if the request is to a web site as part of a session where the initial request had to have its headers modified
- Francois thinks this is included in "previous interaction with the server", and that it should be emphasized as proposed in ISSUE-256 on clarifying section 4.1.2
RESOLUTION: re. ISSUE-255, drop mention of examination of URI from 4.1.2 as it's a heuristic to scope rejected 200 responses, detailed in 4.4, and 4.1.2 already precises to examine the response (with a link to 4.4)
(see also ISSUE-251)
Display change log
