New comments received on the CT guidelines

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

New comments received on the CT guidelines

Francois Daoust

We have received 3 more comments on the Guidelines for Web Content
Transformation Proxies from the Protocols and Formats Working Group
(PFWG), see mail on public-bpwg-comments:

I have created LC-2358, LC-2359 and LC2360 in our tracking system as a

The comment suggests changing the title of the spec to make it clear
that we are talking about mobile:

Wait a minute, I vaguely remember we had extensive discussions about the
title in the past ;)

The comment wonders about the impact of "Cache-Control: no-transform" in
a proxy-based accessibility transcoding solution:

Two notes on the "Cache-Control: no-transform":
- it is defined in the HTTP RFC. We advertise it in the guidelines
because it was neither well-known among content providers nor respected
by content transcoding proxies, but we do not alter its meaning. In
other words, an HTTP proxy should already respect this directive.
- I think we realize that it is a "heavy" switch, but we cannot invent a
switch that would better suit our purpose, e.g to narrow the scope of
the no-transform to "no desktop-to-mobile transcoding".

One way to address the comment could be to add a note to call out that
"Cache-Control: no-transform" is not limited to desktop-to-mobile
transcoding: it also prevents desktop-to-accessible,
mobile-to-accessible (and actually any type of transcoding), and should
therefore be used with great care.

The comment says that it is sometimes preferable to introduce new
elements and attributes that do not belong to the DTD, such as ARIA
attributes in the case of accessibility:

I think that is precisely the reason why we put grammar validation at a
SHOULD level in the first place.