Copyright © 2009 W3C ® ( MIT , ERCIM , Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability , trademark and document use rules apply.
This document is an editors' copy that has no official standing.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/ .
This document reflects group resolutions on comments received on the previous Last Call Working Draft .
Publication as a Group Working Draft of a proposed normative Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
This
document
has
been
produced
by
the
Content
Transformation
Task
Force
of
the
Mobile
Web
Best
Practices
Working
Group
as
part
of
the
Mobile
Web
Initiative
.
Please
send
comments
on
this
document
to
the
Working
Group's
public
email
list
public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
,
a
publicly
archived
mailing
list
.
This document was produced under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy . W3C maintains a public list of patent disclosures made in connection with this document; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) with respect to this specification must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy .
1
Introduction
(Non-Normative)
1.1
Purpose
1.2
Audience
1.3
Scope
1.4
Principles
1.4.1
IAB
Considerations
1.4.2
Priority
of
Intention
2
Terminology
(Normative)
2.1
Types
of
Proxy
2.2
Types
of
Transformation
3
Conformance
(Normative)
3.1
Classes
of
Product
3.2
Normative
and
Informative
Parts
3.3
Normative
Language
for
Conformance
Requirements
3.4
Transformation
Deployment
Conformance
4
Behavior
of
Components
(Normative)
4.1
Proxy
Forwarding
of
Request
4.1.1
Applicable
HTTP
Methods
4.1.2
no-transform
directive
in
Request
4.1.3
Treatment
of
Requesters
that
are
not
Web
browsers
4.1.4
Serving
Cached
Responses
4.1.5
Alteration
of
HTTP
Header
Field
Values
4.1.5.1
Content
Tasting
4.1.5.2
Avoiding
"Request
Unacceptable"
Responses
4.1.5.3
User
Selection
of
Restructured
Experience
4.1.5.4
Sequence
of
Requests
4.1.5.5
Original
Header
Fields
4.1.6
Additional
HTTP
Header
Fields
4.1.6.1
Proxy
Treatment
of
Via
Header
Field
4.2
Proxy
Forwarding
of
Response
to
User
Agent
4.2.1
Applicable
Responses
4.2.2
User
Preferences
4.2.3
Receipt
of
Cache-Control:
no-transform
4.2.4
Use
of
Cache-Control:
no-transform
4.2.5
Server
Rejection
of
HTTP
Request
4.2.6
Receipt
of
Vary
HTTP
Header
Field
4.2.7
Link
to
"handheld"
Representation
4.2.8
WML
Content
4.2.9
Proxy
Decision
to
Transform
4.2.9.1
Alteration
of
Response
4.2.9.2
Link
Rewriting
4.2.9.3
HTTPS
Link
Re-writing
Rewriting
5
Testing
(Normative)
A
References
B
Conformance
Statement
C
Internet
Content
Types
associated
with
Mobile
Content
D
DOCTYPEs
Associated
with
Mobile
Content
E
URI
Patterns
Associated
with
Mobile
Web
Sites
F
Summary
of
User
Preference
Handling
G
Example
Transformation
Interactions
(Non-Normative)
C.1
G.1
Basic
Content
Tasting
by
Proxy
C.2
G.2
Optimization
based
on
Previous
Server
Interaction
C.3
G.3
Optimization
based
on
Previous
Server
Interaction,
Server
has
Changed
its
Operation
C.4
G.4
Server
Response
Indicating
that
this
Representation
is
Intended
for
the
Target
Device
C.5
G.5
Server
Response
Indicating
that
another
Representation
is
Intended
for
the
Target
Device
D
H
Informative
Guidance
for
Origin
Servers
(Non-Normative)
D.1
H.1
Server
Response
to
Proxy
D.1.1
H.1.1
Use
of
HTTP
406
Status
D.1.2
H.1.2
Use
of
HTTP
403
Status
H.1.3
Server
Origination
of
Cache-Control:
no-transform
D.1.3
H.1.4
Varying
Representations
D.1.3.1
H.1.4.1
Use
of
Vary
HTTP
Header
Field
D.1.3.2
H.1.4.2
Indication
of
Intended
Presentation
Media
Type
of
Representation
E
Examples
of
Internet
Content
Types,
DOCTYPEs
and
URI
Patterns
(Non-Normative)
F
I
Applicability
to
Transforming
Solutions
which
are
Out
of
Scope
(Non-Normative)
G
J
Scope
for
Future
Work
(Non-Normative)
G.1
J.1
POWDER
G.2
J.2
link
HTTP
Header
Field
G.3
J.3
Sources
of
Device
Information
G.4
J.4
Inter
Proxy
Communication
G.5
J.5
Amendment
to
and
Refinement
of
HTTP
H
K
Acknowledgments
(Non-Normative)
The overall objective of this document is to provide a means, as far as is practical, for users to be provided with at least a "functional user experience" [Device Independence Glossary] of the Web, when mobile, taking into account the fact that an increasing number of content providers create experiences specially tailored to the mobile context which they do not wish to be altered by third parties. Equally it takes into account the fact that there remain a very large number of Web sites that do not provide a functional user experience when perceived on many mobile devices.
The
BPWG
W3C
Mobile
Web
Best
Practices
Working
Group
(BPWG)
is
not
chartered
to
create
new
technology
-
its
role
is
to
advise
on
best
practice
for
use
of
existing
technology.
In
satisfying
Content
Transformation
requirements,
existing
HTTP
header
fields,
directives
and
behaviors
must
be
respected,
and
as
far
as
is
practical,
no
extensions
to
[RFC
2616
HTTP]
are
to
be
used.
The
BPWG
made
reference
to
Ineternet
Architecture
Board
work
on
"Open
Pluggable
Edge
Services"
[RFC
3238
OPES]
for
various
principles
that
underlie
behavior
of
proxies.
In
this
work
the
IAB
expressed
its
concerns
about
privacy,
control,
monitoring,
and
accountability
of
such
services.
The
recommendations
in
this
document
refer
to
interactions
of
a
proxy
and
do
not
refer
to
any
presumed
aspects
of
the
internal
operation
of
the
proxy.
For
this
reason,
the
document
does
not
discuss
use
of
"allow"
and
"disallow"
lists
(though
it
does
discuss
behavior
that
is
induced
by
the
implementation
of
such
lists).
In
addition
it
does
not
discuss
details
of
how
transformation
is
carried
out
except
if
this
is
reflected
in
inter-operability.
interoperability.
For
this
reason,
it
does
not
discuss
the
insertion
or
insertion
of
headers
and
footers
or
any
other
specific
behaviors
(though
it
does
discuss
the
need
for
essential
user
inter-action
interaction
of
some
form).
The BPWG made reference to Internet Architecture Board (IAB) work on "Open Pluggable Edge Services" [RFC 3238 OPES] for various principles that underlie behavior of proxies. In this work the IAB expressed its concerns about privacy, control, monitoring, and accountability of such services.
Alteration of HTTP requests and responses is not prohibited by HTTP other than in the circumstances referred to in [RFC 2616 HTTP] Section 13.5.2 and Section 14.9.5 .
HTTP defines two types of proxy: transparent proxies and non-transparent proxies. As discussed in [RFC 2616 HTTP] Section 1.3, Terminology :
"A transparent proxy is a proxy that does not modify the request or response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and identification. A non-transparent proxy is a proxy that modifies the request or response in order to provide some added service to the user agent, such as group annotation services, media type transformation, protocol reduction, or anonymity filtering. Except where either transparent or non-transparent behavior is explicitly stated, the HTTP proxy requirements apply to both types of proxies."
This document elaborates the behavior of non-transparent proxies, when used for Content Transformation in the context discussed in [CT Landscape] .
There are three classes of operation on responses:
Restructuring
content
is
a
process
whereby
the
original
layout
is
altered
so
that
content
is
added
or
removed
or
where
the
spatial
or
navigational
relationship
of
parts
of
content
is
altered,
e.g.
linearization
(i.e.
reordering
presentation
elements,
especially
tables,
so
that
they
fit
on
a
narrow
display
and
can
be
traversed
without
horizontal
scrolling)
or
pagination
(i.e.
splitting
a
document
too
large
to
be
stored
in
or
transmitted
to
the
terminal
in
one
piece,
so
that
it
can
be
nevertheless
accessed
by
browsing
through
a
succession
of
smaller
interlinked
documents).
It
also
includes
rewriting
URIs
so
that
subsequent
requests
are
routed
via
the
proxy
handling
the
response.
It
includes
also
rewriting
of
URIs
so
that
subsequent
requests
route
via
the
proxy
handling
this
response.
Recoding content is a process whereby the layout of the content remains the same, but details of its encoding may be altered. Examples include re-encoding HTML as XHTML, correcting invalid markup in HTML, conversion of images between formats (but not, for example, reducing animations to static images).
Optimizing content includes removing redundant white space, re-compressing images (without loss of fidelity) and compressing for transfer.
The Content Transformation Guidelines specification has one class of products:
A Transformation Deployment is the provision of non-transparent components in the path of HTTP requests and responses. Provisions that are applicable to a Transformation Deployment are identified in this document by use of the term "transforming proxy" or "proxy" in the singular or plural.
The key words must , must not , required , shall , shall not , should , should not , recommended , not recommended , may , and optional in this Recommendation have the meaning defined in [RFC 2119] .
A Transformation Deployment conforms to these guidelines if it follows the statements in 4.1 Proxy Forwarding of Request , 4.2 Proxy Forwarding of Response to User Agent and 5 Testing (Normative) .
A
Transformation
Deployment
that
wishes
to
claim
conformance
must
make
available
a
conformance
statement
B
Conformance
Statement
that
specifies
the
reasons
for
non-compliance
with
any
clauses
containing
the
key
words
"
should
"
and
"
should
not
.
",
"
recommended
"
and
"
not
recommended
".
Conformance statements must be sent to public-content-transformation-conformance@w3.org . Public archives of this list may be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-content-transformation-conformance/ .
Proxies should not intervene in methods other than GET, POST, HEAD.
If the HTTP method is altered from HEAD to GET, proxies should (providing such action is in accordance with normal HTTP caching rules) cache the response so that a second GET request for the same content is not required (see also 4.1.4 Serving Cached Responses ).
Other than to convert between HEAD and GET proxies must not alter request methods.
no-transform
directive
in
Request
If
the
request
contains
a
Cache-Control:
no-transform
directive,
proxies
must
not
alter
the
request
other
than
to
comply
with
transparent
HTTP
behavior
defined
in
[RFC
2616
HTTP]
sections
section
14.9.5
and
section
13.5.2
and
to
add
header
fields
as
described
in
4.1.6
Additional
HTTP
Header
Fields
below.
Note:
An
example
of
the
use
of
Cache-Control:
no-transform
is
the
issuing
of
asynchronous
HTTP
requests,
perhaps
by
means
of
XMLHTTPRequest
XMLHttpRequest
[XHR]
,
which
may
include
such
a
directive
in
order
to
prevent
transformation
of
both
the
request
and
the
response.
Aside from the usual caching procedures defined in [RFC 2616 HTTP] , in some circumstances, proxies may paginate responses and where this is the case a request may be for a subsequent page of a previously requested resource. In this case proxies may for the sake of consistency of representation serve stale data but when doing so should notify the user that this is the case and must provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy.
Proxies
Aside
from
the
usual
procedures
defined
in
[RFC
2616
HTTP]
proxies
should
not
modify
the
values
of
header
fields
other
than
the
,
User
Agent
User-Agent
Accept
,
Accept-Charset
,
and
Accept-Encoding
,
and
Accept-Language
header
fields
and
must
not
delete
header
fields.
It
must
be
possible
for
the
server
to
reconstruct
the
original
UA
User
Agent
originated
header
fields
by
copying
directly
from
the
corresponding
X-Device
header
field
values
(see
4.1.5.5
Original
Header
Fields
).
Editorial
Note:
Note
that
the
need
for
copies
of
the
original
header
values
is
(once
again)
in
question.
Editorial
Note:
Note
that
the
question
of
whether
alteration
of
the
User-Agent
field
solely
in
order
to
avoid
a
406
response
has
*seemingly*
not
been
answered
definitively
Other
than
to
comply
with
transparent
HTTP
operation,
proxies
should
not
modify
any
request
header
fields
unless:
unless
one
of
the
following
applies:
the user would be prohibited from accessing content as a result of the server responding that the request is "unacceptable" (see 4.2.5 Server Rejection of HTTP Request );
the user has specifically requested a restructured desktop experience (see 4.1.5.3 User Selection of Restructured Experience );
the request is part of a sequence of requests to the same Web site and either it is technically infeasible not to adjust the request because of earlier interaction, or because doing so preserves consistency of user experience.
These circumstances are detailed in the following sections.
Note:
In this section, the concept of "Web site" is used (rather than "origin server") as some origin servers host many different Web sites. Since the concept of "Web site" is not strictly defined, proxies should use heuristics including comparisons of domain name to assess whether resources form part of the same "Web site".
Note:
The
heuristics
discussed
URI
referred
to
in
the
request
plays
no
part
in
determining
whether
or
not
to
alter
HTTP
request
header
field
values.
In
particular
the
patterns
mentioned
in
4.2.9
Proxy
Decision
to
Transform
relating
to
URI
patterns
are
not
part
of
the
decision
to
alter
HTTP
Header
Field
values.
material.
A proxy may reissue a request with altered HTTP header field values if a previous request with unaltered values resulted in the origin server rejecting the request as "unacceptable" (see 4.2.5 Server Rejection of HTTP Request ). A proxy may apply heuristics of various kinds to assess, in advance of sending unaltered header field values, whether the request is likely to cause a "request unacceptable" response. If it determines that this is likely then it may alter header field values without sending unaltered values in advance, providing that it subsequently assesses the response as described under 4.2.6 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header Field below, and is prepared to reissue the request with unaltered header fields, and alter its subsequent behavior in respect of the Web site so that unaltered header fields are sent.
A
proxy
must
not
re-issue
reissue
a
POST
request
with
altered
header
fields
when
the
response
to
the
unaltered
POST
request
has
HTTP
status
code
200
(in
other
words,
it
may
only
send
the
altered
request
for
a
POST/PUT
request
when
the
unaltered
one
resulted
in
an
HTTP
406
response,
and
not
a
"request
unacceptable"
response).
Proxies
may
offer
users
an
option
to
choose
to
view
a
restructured
experience
even
when
a
Web
site
offers
a
choice
of
user
experience.
If
a
user
has
made
such
a
choice
then
proxies
may
alter
header
field
values
when
requesting
resources
in
order
to
reflect
that
choice,
but
must
,
on
receipt
of
an
indication
from
a
Web
site
that
it
offers
alternative
representations
(see
D.1.3.2
H.1.4.2
Indication
of
Intended
Presentation
Media
Type
of
Representation
),
inform
the
user
of
that
and
allow
them
to
select
an
alternative
representation.
Proxies
should
assume
that
by
default
users
will
wish
to
receive
a
representation
prepared
by
the
Web
site.
Proxies
must
assess
whether
a
user's
expressed
preference
for
a
restructured
representation
is
still
valid
if
a
Web
site
changes
its
choice
of
representations
(see
4.2.6
Receipt
of
Vary
HTTP
Header
Field
).
When
requesting
resources
that
are
included
resources
(e.g.
style
sheets,
images),
proxies
should
make
the
request
for
such
resources
with
the
same
User-Agent
header
field
as
the
request
for
the
resource
from
which
they
are
referenced.
For
the
purpose
of
consistency
of
representation,
proxies
may
request
linked
resources
(e.g.
those
referenced
using
the
a
element)
that
form
part
of
the
same
Web
site
as
a
previously
requested
resource
with
the
same
header
fields
as
the
resource
from
which
they
are
referenced.
When requesting linked resources that do not form part of the same Web site as the resource from which they are linked, proxies should not base their choice of header fields on a consistency of presentation premise.
Specifically the following mapping must be used:
Original | Replacement | Ref |
---|---|---|
User-Agent
|
X-Device-User-Agent
| RFC2616 Section 14.43 |
Accept
|
X-Device-Accept
| RFC2616 Section 14.1 |
Accept-Charset
|
X-Device-Accept-Charset
| RFC2616 Section 14.2 |
Accept-Encoding
|
X-Device-Accept-Encoding
| RFC2616 Section 14.3 |
Accept-Language
|
X-Device-Accept-Language
| RFC2616 Section 14.4 |
The
X-Device-
prefixed
header
names
listed
in
this
section
have
been
provisionally
registered
with
IANA
(see
Provisional
Message
Header
Field
Names
).
Note:
The
X-Device-
prefix
was
chosen
primarily
on
the
basis
that
this
is
a
already
existing
convention.
It
is
noted
that
the
values
encoded
in
such
header
fields
may
not
ultimately
derive
from
a
device,
they
are
merely
received
fields.
The
treatment
of
received
X-Device
header
fields,
which
may
happen
where
there
are
multiple
transforming
proxies,
is
undefined
(see
G
J
Scope
for
Future
Work
).
Irrespective
of
the
presence
of
a
no-transform
directive:
Via
Header
Field
Proxies
must
(in
accordance
with
RFC
2616)
include
a
Via
HTTP
header
field
indicating
their
presence
and
should
indicate
their
ability
to
transform
content
by
including
a
comment
in
the
Via
HTTP
header
field
consisting
of
the
URI
"http://www.w3.org/ns/ct".
Editorial
Note:
I
don't
know
why
this
is
useful.
What
is
a
server
expected
to
do
as
a
result?
When
forwarding
Via
header
fields,
proxies
should
not
alter
them
by
removing
comments
from
them.
According
to
[RFC
2616
HTTP]
Section
14.45
Via
header
field
comments
"
may
be
removed
by
any
recipient
prior
to
forwarding
the
message".
However,
the
justification
for
removing
such
comments
is
based
on
memory
limitations
of
early
proxies,
most
proxies.
Most
modern
proxies
do
not
suffer
such
limitations.
Proxies should not intervene in the response if the request method was not HEAD, GET or POST.
Proxies must solicit re-expression of preferences in respect of a server if the server starts to indicate that it offers varying responses as discussed under 4.2.6 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header Field .
Cache-Control:
no-transform
If
the
response
includes
a
Cache-Control:
no-transform
directive
then
proxies
must
not
alter
it
other
than
to
comply
with
transparent
HTTP
behavior
as
described
in
[RFC
2616
HTTP]
Section
13.5.2
and
Section
14.9.5
and
other
than
as
follows.
If
a
proxy
determines
that
a
resource
as
currently
represented
is
likely
to
cause
serious
mis-operation
misoperation
of
the
user
agent
then
it
may
advise
the
user
that
this
is
the
case
and
must
provide
the
option
for
the
user
to
continue
with
unaltered
content.
content
(and
may
provide
other
options
too).
Cache-Control:
no-transform
Proxies
may
use
Cache-Control:
no-transform
to
inhibit
transformation
by
further
proxies.
Vary
HTTP
Header
Field
A
proxy
may
not
be
carrying
out
content
tasting
as
described
under
4.1.5.2
Avoiding
"Request
Unacceptable"
Responses
if
it
anticipates
receiving
a
"request
unacceptable"
response.
However,
if
it
makes
a
request
with
altered
header
fields
in
these
circumstances,
and
receives
a
response
containing
a
Vary
header
field
referring
to
one
of
the
altered
header
fields
then
it
should
request
the
resource
again
with
unaltered
header
fields.
It
should
also
update
whatever
heuristics
it
uses
so
that
unaltered
header
fields
are
presented
first
in
subsequent
requests
for
this
resource.
If
the
response
is
an
HTML
response
and
it
contains
a
<link
rel="alternate"
media="handheld"
/>
element,
a
proxy
should
request
and
process
the
referenced
resource,
unless
the
resource
referenced
is
the
current
resource
as
determined
by
representation
.
Note:
In
this
document
the
presence
of
link
elements
term
current
representation
means
a
"same
document
reference"
as
discussed
under
defined
in
D.1.3.2
Indication
[RFC
3986]
Section
4.4
,
with
the
addition
that
if
a
Vary
HTTP
header
field
was
present
on
the
response
then
it
is
the
same
representation
if
the
values
of
Intended
Presentation
Media
Type
the
HTTP
header
fields
of
Representation
.
oops
a
reference
to
something
that
isn't
normative
any
more
the
request
have
not
been
altered.
If
the
content
is
WML
or
WBMP?
proxies
should
act
in
a
transparent
manner.
Note:
This does not affect the operation of proxies that are also WAP Gateways.
the
content
is
appropriate
HTML
and
contains
<link
rel="alternate"
media="handheld"/>
with
a
reference
to
restructure
the
or
recode
current
representation
;
the
DOCTYPE
of
the
content
(if
it
(in
has
one)
indicates
XHTML-MP,
XHTML
Basic,
WML
or
iMode
as
listed
in
D
DOCTYPEs
Associated
with
Mobile
Content
;
the
presence
Content-Type
has
a
value
listed
in
C
Internet
Content
Types
associated
with
Mobile
Content
.
the
URI
of
the
response
(following
redirection
or
as
indicated
by
the
Content-Location
HTTP
header
field)
matches
a
pattern
listed
in
E
URI
Patterns
Associated
with
Mobile
Web
Sites
;
the response contains a resource that is referenced as an included resource suitable for "handheld" in a resource that was itself handled transparently;
a
claim
of
mobileOK
Basic
[mobileOK
Basic
Tests]
conformance
is
indicated
(see
[mobileOK
Scheme]
for
how
such
directives,
heuristics
should
not
a
claim
may
be
used.)
indicated).
Examples
of
heuristics:
Other
factors
that
a
proxy
may
take
into
account:
The Web site (see note ) has previously shown that it is contextually aware, even if the present response does not indicate this;
a
claim
of
mobileOK
Basic
[mobileOK
Basic
Tests]
conformance
is
indicated;
the
Content-Type
or
other
aspects
of
the
response
(such
as
the
DOCTYPE)
are
known
to
be
specific
to
the
device
or
class
of
device
(see
E
Examples
of
Internet
Content
Types,
DOCTYPEs
and
URI
Patterns
;
the
user
agent
has
features
(such
as
linearization
or
zoom)
that
allow
it
to
present
the
content
unaltered;
the
URI
of
the
response
(following
redirection
or
as
indicated
by
the
Content-Location
HTTP
header
field)
or
the
leading
portion
of
the
path
indicates
that
the
resource
is
intended
for
mobile
use
(see
E
Examples
of
Internet
Content
Types,
DOCTYPEs
and
URI
Patterns
);
the
response
contains
client-side
client
side
scripts
that
may
mis-operate
misoperate
if
the
resource
is
restructured;
the
response
is
an
HTML
response
and
it
includes
<link>
elements
specifying
alternatives
according
to
presentation
media
type.
Other than as noted in this section the nature of restructuring that is carried out, any character encoding alterations and what is omitted and what is inserted is, as discussed in 1.3 Scope , out of scope of this document.
If a proxy alters the response then:
It
must
add
a
Warning
214
Transformation
Applied
HTTP
header
field;
The altered content should validate according to an appropriate published formal grammar and if XML must be well-formed ;
It should indicate to the user that the content has been transformed for mobile presentation and provide an option to view the original, unmodified content.
In
this
document
two
URIs
have
the
following
Same-Origin
if
the
scheme
component
and
the
host
and
port
subcomponents,
as
defined
in
[RFC
3986]
,
all
match..
Section
6
of
[RFC
3986]
discusses
URI
comparison.
Some
proxy
deployments
have
to
"rewrite"
links
in
content
in
order
for
the
User
Agent
to
request
the
referenced
resources
through
the
proxy.
In
so
doing,
proxies
make
unrelated
resources
appear
as
though
they
have
the
same-origin
and
hence
there
is
under
active
discussion.
One
view
says
that
HTTPS
a
danger
of
introducing
security
vulnerabilities.
Note:
This
section
(on
link
rewriting
is
unacceptable
under
any
circumstances.
Note
rewriting)
refers
also
to
insertion
of
links,
frame
flattening
and
any
other
techniques
that
introduces
the
question
of
whether
it
"same-origin"
issue.
Note:
Link
rewriting
is
acceptable
always
used
by
CT
Proxies
that
are
accessed
as
an
origin
server
initially,
e.g.
which
provide
mobile
adapted
web
search
and
navigation
to
rewrite
any
link
has
been
opened
(because
the
web
pages
returned
in
the
search
results,
or
to
which
the
browser
is
redirected
through
the
CT
Proxy
for
adaptation
of
a
web
page.
Link
rewriting
may
be
used
by
CT
Proxies
acting
as
normal
HTTP
proxies
(e.g.
configured
or
transparent)
for
the
browser,
but
may
not
be
required
since
all
browser
requests
flow
through
the
CT
Proxy.
Proxies must not rewrite links when content transformation is prohibited.
Proxies
must
preserve
security
considerations
relating
to
[same
domain]
concerns)
between
requests
for
domains
that
are
not
same-origin
in
respect
of
cookies
and
scripts.
If
a
proxy
re-writes
rewrites
HTTPS
links,
replacement
links
must
have
the
scheme
https
.
When
forwarding
requests
originating
from
HTTPS
links
proxies
must
include
a
Via
header
field
as
discussed
under
4.1.6.1
Proxy
Treatment
of
Via
Header
Field
.
When
forwarding
responses
from
servers
proxies
must
notify
the
user
of
invalid
server
certificates.
Add
some
stuff
below
under
guidance
for
servers
Note:
For
clarity
it
is
emphasized
that
it
is
not
possible
for
a
transforming
proxy
to
transform
content
accessed
via
an
HTTPS
link
without
breaking
end-to-end
security.
Editorial Note: Update to final location
See
example
conformacne
statement
from
Francois
(link
below)
and
his
covering
note
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090923
See
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-081107
User
expression
of
preferences
is
referred
to
in
several
sections
in
this
document.
Those
sections
are:
User preferences are also referred to non-normatively under H.1.4 Varying Representations .
Request resource with original header fields
If the response is a 406 response:
If
the
response
contains
Cache-Control:
no-transform
,
forward
it
Otherwise
re-request
request
again
with
altered
header
fields
If the response is a 200 response:
Otherwise assess whether the 200 response is a form of "Request Unacceptable"
If
it
is,
re-request
request
again
with
altered
header
fields
Proxy receives a request for resource P that it has not encountered before
Response is a desktop oriented representation of the resource
Proxy transforms this response into content that the user agent can display well and forwards it
Proxy receives a further request for the resource P
Response is a desktop oriented representation of the resource
Proxy transforms this response into content that the user agent can display well and forwards it
Proxy
receives
a
request
for
resource
P,
that
it
has
previously
encountered
as
in
C.2
G.2
Optimization
based
on
Previous
Server
Interaction
Proxy forwards request with altered header fields
Response
is
200
OK
containing
a
Vary:
User-Agent
header
field
Proxy
notices
that
behavior
has
changed
and
re-issues
reissues
the
request
with
original
header
fields
Response is 200 OK and proxy forwards it
Vary
HTTP
Header
Field
If
a
server
varies
its
representation
according
to
examination
of
received
HTTP
header
fields
then
[RFC
2616
HTTP]
describes
how
to
use
the
Vary
header
field
to
indicate
this.
Servers
that
are
aware
of
the
presence
of
a
transforming
proxy,
as
identified
by
a
Via
HTTP
Header
field
might
alter
their
responses
according
to
their
knowledge
of
specific
proxy
behavior.
When
doing
so
it
is
good
practice
to
make
sure
that
the
Internet
content
type
for
a
response
is
correct
for
the
actual
content
(e.g.
a
server
should
not
choose
Content-Type:
application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml
because
it
suspects
that
proxies
will
not
transform
content
of
this
type,
if
its
content
is
not
valid
XHTML-MP).
If
a
server
has
distinct
representations
that
vary
according
to
the
target
presentation
media
type,
it
can
inhibit
transformation
of
the
response
by
including
a
Cache-Control:
no-transform
directive
(see
D.1.2
H.1.3
Server
Origination
of
Cache-Control:
no-transform
).
In
addition,
in
HTML
content
it
can
indicate
the
medium
for
which
the
representation
is
intended
by
including
a
link
element
identifying
in
its
media
attribute
the
target
presentation
media
types
of
this
representation
and
setting
the
href
attribute
to
"Same-Document
Reference"
(see
[RFC
3986]
section
4.4
)
and
in
particular
an
empty
href
attribute
is
a
"Same
Document
Reference".
In
addition
it
is
good
practice
but
do
we
have
a
reference
for
this
to
include
link
elements
identifying
the
target
presentation
media
types
of
other
available
representations
in
a
similar
manner.
If
content
for
more
than
one
presentation
media
type
is
served
from
the
same
URI,
it
is
better
not
to
use
a
link
element
identifying
the
presentation
media
types
as
the
URI
will
appear
to
be
a
"same
document
reference",
indicating
to
a
client
that
this
representation
is
suitable
for
all
the
named
presentation
media
types.
Instead,
use
a
Vary
HTTP
header
field
indicating
that
the
response
varies
according
to
the
received
User-Agent
HTTP
header
field.
I'm
really
not
sure
this
is
right
actually.
Think
we
need
to
bang
on
the
TAG's
door
again.
Note:
Some
examples
of
the
use
of
the
link
element
are
included
above
in
C
G
Example
Transformation
Interactions
.
The BPWG believes that POWDER will represent a powerful mechanism by which a server may express transformation preferences. Future work in this area may recommend the use of POWDER to provide a mechanism for origin servers to indicate more precisely which alternatives they have and what transformation they are willing to allow on them, and in addition to provide for Content Transformation proxies to indicate which services they are able to perform.
At
present
HTTP
does
not
provide
a
mechanism
for
communicating
original
header
field
values
(hence
the
use
of
X-Device-
header
values.
The
scheme
based
on
X-Device
prefixed
fields
as
discussed
described
under
4.1.5
Alteration
of
HTTP
Header
Field
Values
).
records
and
clarifies
an
approach
used
to
achieve
this
effect
by
some
content
transformation
proxies.
This
scheme
relies
upon
non-standard
HTTP
fields,
which
are
identified
by
their
prefix
as
experimental
according
to
IETF
standards
(notably
RFC
822
and
RFC
2076),
and
are
not
included
in
the
IANA
registry
of
HTTP
header
fields.
While
the
mechanism
defined
in
that
section,
based
on
current
practice,
applies
to
conforming
transformation
proxy
deployments,
it
is
possible
that
in
future,
in
collaboration
with
the
IETF,
this
approach
will
be
reconsidered.
This
implies
that
the
specified
X-Device
prefixed
fields
may,
at
some
time,
become
deprecated
in
favor
of
new
equivalent
fields,
or
that
an
entirely
different
approach
will
be
taken
to
representing
such
values.
A
number
of
mechanisms
exist
in
HTTP
which
might
be
exploited
given
more
precise
definition
of
their
operation
-
for
example
the
OPTIONS
method
and
the
HTTP
300
(Multiple
Choices)
Status.
The
editor
acknowledges
contributions
of
various
kinds
from
members
of
the
Mobile
Web
Best
Practices
Working
Group
and
earlier
from
the
Content
Transformation
Task
Force
.
of
that
group.
The editor acknowledges significant written contributions from: