ISSUE-289: Should CT proxies send X-Device-* headers after having determined the content is not mobile-optimized?

includeOriginalHeaders

Should CT proxies send X-Device-* headers after having determined the content is not mobile-optimized?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies

Raised by:

François Daoust

Opened on:

2009-03-10

Description:

If we mandate sending X-Device-* headers, this should be done with a mention they could get deprecated in the future (per ACTION-897 and ACTION-912).

But is there any point in having the headers sent? If the content is mobile-optimized, the CT proxy shouldn't transform it anyway, and if it isn't, it's unlikely the CT provider will do anything with these additional headers.

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-897 on Eduardo Casais to Establish what best current practice is with regard the withrawal of use of X- once the non X- form is agreed - due 2009-01-20, closed
• ACTION-912 on Eduardo Casais to Suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF and may deprecate this in the future - due 2009-03-10, closed

Related emails:

1. RE: Content Transformation Guidelines 1r (from SPatterson@Novarra.com on 2009-06-15)
2. Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1r (from passani@eunet.no on 2009-06-08)
3. Content Transformation Guidelines 1r (from jrabin@mtld.mobi on 2009-06-07)
4. [minutes] F2F Day 2 - 26 March 2009 - Content Transformation Guidelines (from fd@w3.org on 2009-03-30)
5. [minutes] Tuesday March 10 teleconf (from dom@w3.org on 2009-03-10)
6. ISSUE-289 (includeOriginalHeaders): Should CT proxies send X-Device-* headers after having determined the content is not mobile-optimized? [Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-03-10)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log