[agenda] CT Call Tuesday 24 June 2008

Hi,

Back to the usual weekly call!
We've spent one complete day during last week's F2F on Content 
Transformation, and resolved all the issues but one.


-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: none

Date: 2008-06-24T1400Z for 60mn
Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.

Latest draft:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606
... which obviously doesn't reflect the resolutions taken during the F2F!


1. Where we stand: a quick review of the F2F
--------------------------------------------
See the minutes of Day 1, entirely spent on Content Transformation:
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html

a) The group will be rechartered to switch the document from informative 
to normative.

b) Using the link element to "link to self" was emphasized as being a 
way to determine that an HTTP Status 200 response is not a "rejected" 
response. A handheld "link to self" such as:
 <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href="" />
...has 2 meanings: I "am" the handheld representation of the resource, 
or I "can be" a handheld representation if I detect that the device is a 
handheld device. To clearly identify the first case, some way of saying 
"this particular" representation was required. We agreed to say that 
when the "href" attribute refers to a location within the current 
representation (by use of a fragment such as "#top"), then the 
representation is a handheld representation. We'll include a note to 
explain that the meaning of an empty "href" is ambiguous.

c) Current section 4.1.2 is to be rewritten in a clearer algorithm that 
explains how a CT-proxy should handle HTTP requests, as detailed in the 
minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#item_issue257

d) The use of OPTIONS will be mentioned in the "Scope for Future Work" 
appendix.

e) We'll remain silent on whether CT-proxies should be mobileOK.

f) It's not forbidden to transform mobileOK content but that should be 
part of the heuristics to determine if a page is mobile-friendly

g) No mention of the confusing term "session" in the doc. We'll use the 
notion of "web site", leaving the scoping of "web site" boundaries up to 
CT-proxy vendors. Content tasting may not be done on different pages of 
the same web site, but should be done whenever a request is made for a 
linked resource that is on a new web site.

h) As far as the CT guidelines are concerned, there is no difference 
between a URI-rewriting proxy and a regular non-transparent one

i) Section 3.1 on requirements is to be moved (and refreshed) to the 
Scope section. Requirements that could not be addressed are to be moved 
to the "Scope for Future Work" appendix.

j) Remaining issue: persistent expression of user preferences


2. Any other comments?
----------------------


3. Close without much discussion
--------------------------------
ACTION-769 on fd to ping Soonho on providing feedback about CT
ACTION-711 on Soonho to provide feedback on the document
   Soonho was moved to another position and cannot work on the document 
for the time being


4. ISSUE-242: Persistent expression of user preferences
-------------------------------------------------------
We started the discussion during the F2F, but were both too tired and 
running out of time to come to a conclusion...

What we've resolved so far:
- It is permissible for the proxy to offer the user a restructured 
desktop presentation on a 'site' by 'site' basis
- If there is a blanket user preference asserted for any specific 
representation option and multiple representations are found to exist 
then the CT proxy server SHOULD inform the user of this fact and provide 
the user with an option to change to one of the alternative representations.
- Clarification that a CT-proxy for which there exists an arrangement 
with a content provider is an adaptation solution part of the origin 
server of the content provider, and as such out of scope.
- Clarification that HTTP redirects is one way to go for a URI-rewriting 
proxy to behave transparently on receipt of a Cache-Control: 
no-transform directive (internal clarification, "transparent" should be 
enough, we probably won't mention it in the guidelines)
- Emphasis on the need for a strong Cache-Control: no-transform directive
- Alternative representations of a resource should be indicated with 
link elements/headers.

Some remaining points to address (taken from the minutes):
a. how the CT proxy should react against specific user preferences when 
a site becomes more capable
b. that the default experience should be for the mobile experience
c. that blanket expression of preferences should be interpreted in the 
context that if an origin server can provide a choice of experience then 
it should do so
d. that CT proxies should, in restructured content, provide links to 
alternative representations
e. how would a CP indicate to a CT Proxy that it offers user choice of 
representation?
f. allow users to change previously expressed preferences

In terms of sections, what we're talking about is section 3.2 Control of 
the Behavior of the Proxy, and its possible merging with other parts of 
the document for the sake of clarity.


5. Schedule
-----------
- Updated draft?
- Last Call?


6. AOB?
-------

Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 10:18:03 UTC