Copyright © 2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
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 is a Last Call Working Draft of Content Transformation Guidelines 1.0, expected to become a W3C Recommendation. The W3C Membership and other interested parties are invited to review the document and send comments to public-bpwg-comments@w3.org (with public archive) through 16 September 2008.
Publication as a Working Draft 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 Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group as part of the Mobile Web Initiative.
Since its publication as a First Public Working Draft on 14 April 2008, the Content Transformation Guidelines 1.0 document has been almost entirely re-written. The guidelines were extended, precised and re-worded for clarity reasons. In particular:
"X-Device-"<original header name>
HTTP header was confirmed.link
element were detailed.The Working Group notes that it has already identified a guideline considered to be at risk: the notification of users as defined in section 4.1.4 Serving Cached Responses may turn out to be difficult to implement from a user experience's point of view and may be removed in future versions of the document based on the feedback received.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; 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) 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 Summary of Requirements
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 Content Deployment Conformance
3.5 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 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 Headers
4.1.6 Additional HTTP Headers
4.1.6.1 Proxy Treatment of Via Header
4.2 Server Response to Proxy
4.2.1 Use of HTTP 406 Status
4.2.2 Server Origination of Cache-Control: no-transform
4.2.3 Varying Representations
4.2.3.1 Use of Vary HTTP Header
4.2.3.2 Indication of Intended Presentation Media Type of Representation
4.3 Proxy Forwarding of Response to User Agent
4.3.1 Receipt of Cache-Control: no-transform
4.3.2 Receipt of Warning: 214 Transformation Applied
4.3.3 Server Rejection of HTTP Request
4.3.4 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header
4.3.5 Link to "handheld" Representation
4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform
4.3.6.1 Alteration of Response
4.3.6.2 HTTPS Link Re-writing
5 Testing (Normative)
A References
B Example Transformation Interactions (Non-Normative)
B.1 Basic Content Tasting by Proxy
B.2 Optimization based on Previous Server Interaction
B.3 Optimization based on Previous Server Interaction, Server has Changed its
Operation
B.4 Server Response Indicating that this Representation is Intended for the Target
Device
B.5 Server Response Indicating that another Representation is Intended for the
Target Device
C Applicability to Transforming Solutions which are Out of Scope (Non-Normative)
D Scope for Future Work (Non-Normative)
D.1 POWDER
D.2 link HTTP Header
D.3 Sources of Device Information
D.4 Inter Proxy Communication
D.5 Amendment to and Refinement of HTTP
E Administrative Arrangements (Non-Normative)
F 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 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 headers, directives and behaviors must be respected, and as far as is practical, no extensions to [RFC 2616 HTTP] are to be used.
The needs of these actors are as follows:
The user agent needs to be able to tell the Content Transformation proxy and the origin server:
The Content Transformation proxy needs to be able to tell the origin server:
that some degree of Content Transformation (restructuring and recoding) can be performed;
that content is being requested on behalf of something else and what that something else is;
that the request headers have been altered and what the original ones were.
The origin server needs to be able to tell the Content Transformation proxy:
that it varies the representation of its responses according to device type and other factors;
that it is not permissible to perform Content Transformation;
that it has media-specific representations;
that is unable or unwilling to deal with the request in its present form.
The Content Transformation proxy needs to be able to tell the user agent:
that it has applied transformations of various kinds to the content.
The Content Transformation proxy needs to be able to interact with the user:
to allow the user to disable its features;
to alert the user to the fact that it has transformed content and to allow access to an untransformed representation of the content.
Note:
A more extensive discussion of the requirements for these guidelines can be found in "Content Transformation Landscape" [CT Landscape].
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.
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. by linearization or pagination. It includes also rewriting of URIs so that subsequent requests route via the proxy handling this response.
Recoding content
Optimizing content
The Content Transformation Guidelines specification has two classes 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, may, and optional in this Recommendation have the meaning defined in [RFC 2119].
Proxies should not intervene in methods other than GET, POST, HEAD and PUT.
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).
no-transform
directive in RequestIf the request contains a Cache-Control: no-transform
directive
proxies must forward the request unaltered to the server,
other than to comply with transparent HTTP behavior and as noted below (see 4.1.6 Additional HTTP Headers).
Note:
An example of the use of Cache-Control: no-transform
is the
issuing of asynchronous HTTP requests, perhaps by means of
XMLHTTPRequest [XHR], which may include such a
directive in order to prevent transformation of both the request and the
response.
Proxies must act as though a no-transform
directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request) unless
they are able positively to determine that the user agent is a Web browser.
The mechanism by which a proxy recognizes the user agent as a Web browser
should use evidence from the HTTP request, in
particular the User-Agent
and Accept
headers.
Other than to comply with transparent HTTP operation, proxies should not modify request headers unless:
the user would be prohibited from accessing content as a result of the server responding that the request is "unacceptable" (see 4.3.3 Server Rejection of HTTP Request);
the user has specifically requested a restructured desktop 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".
A proxy may reissue a request with altered HTTP header values if a previous request with unaltered values resulted in the origin server rejecting the request as "unacceptable" (see 4.3.3 Server Rejection of HTTP Request). A proxy may apply heuristics of various kinds to assess, in advance of sending unaltered header values, whether the request is likely to cause a "request unacceptable" response. If it determines that this is likely then it may alter header values without sending unaltered values in advance, providing that it subsequently assesses the response as described under 4.3.4 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header below, and is prepared to reissue the request with unaltered headers, and alter its subsequent behavior in respect of the Web site so that unaltered headers are sent.
A proxy must not re-issue a POST/PUT request with altered headers when the response to the unaltered POST/PUT 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 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 4.2.3.2 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 4.3.4 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header).
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 may not ultimately derive from a
device, they are merely received headers. The treatment of received
X-Device
headers, which may happen where there are
multiple transforming proxies, is undefined (see D Scope for Future Work).
Irrespective of the presence of a no-transform
directive:
Via
HeaderWhen forwarding Via
headers proxies should
not alter them in any way.
According to [RFC 2616 HTTP]
Section 14.45
Via
header 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 modern proxies do not suffer such
limitations.
Cache-Control: no-transform
Servers must include a Cache-Control:
no-transform
directive if one is received in the HTTP request.
Vary
HTTP HeaderIf a server varies its representation according to examination of
received HTTP headers then it must include a
Vary
HTTP header indicating this to be the case. If, in
addition to, or instead of HTTP headers, a server varies its
representation based on other factors (e.g. source IP Address) then it
must, in accordance with [RFC 2616 HTTP], include a Vary
header containing the value '*'.
Servers may base their actions on knowledge of
behavior of specific transforming proxies, as identified in a
Via
header, but should not choose an
Internet content type for a response based on an assumption or
heuristics about behavior of any intermediaries. (e.g. a server should
not choose Content-Type: application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml
solely on the basis that it suspects that proxies will not transform
content of this type).
If a server has distinct representations that vary according to the
target presentation media type, it should inhibit
transformation of the response by including a Cache-Control:
no-transform
directive (see 4.2.2 Server Origination of Cache-Control: no-transform).
In HTML content it should 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 a valid local reference (i.e. use the
fragment identifier (see [RFC 3986]
section 3.5) added to
the URI of the document being served to point to a valid target within
the document).
In addition it should include link
elements identifying the target presentation media types of other
available representations by setting the media
attribute to
indicate those representations and the href
attribute to a
URI without a fragment identifier.
Note:
The presence of link
elements which do not contain a
valid local reference does not indicate one way or another whether
this representation is formatted for the presentation media types
listed.
Note:
Some examples of the use of the link
element are
included below in B Example Transformation Interactions.
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 and
other than as follows.
If a proxy determines that a resource as currently represented is likely to cause serious mis-operation 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.
For compatibility with servers that do not implement this Recommendation (see 4.2.1 Use of HTTP 406 Status), a proxy may treat responses with an HTTP 200 Status as though they were responses with an HTTP 406 Status if it has determined that the content (e.g. "Your browser is not supported") is equivalent to a response with an HTTP 406 Status.
Vary
HTTP HeaderIf, in response to an HTTP request with altered headers that was not preceded
by an HTTP request with unaltered headers, a proxy receives a response
containing a Vary
header referring to one of the altered
headers then it should request the resource again with
unaltered headers, it should update whatever heuristics
it uses so that unaltered headers are presented first in subsequent requests
for this resource and it should resume the behavior
described under 4.1.5.2 Avoiding "Request Unacceptable" Responses to avoid
rejection of subsequent requests.
If the response is an HTML response and it contains a <link
rel="alternate" media="handheld" />
element, the CT-proxy
should request and process the referenced resource,
unless the resource referenced is the current resource as determined by the
presence of link
elements as discussed under 4.2.3.2 Indication of Intended Presentation Media Type of Representation.
In the absence of a Vary
or no-transform
directive
(or a meta HTTP-Equiv
element containing Cache-Control:
no-transform
) proxies should apply heuristics
to the response to determine whether it is appropriate to restructure or recode it (in the presence of such
directives, heuristics should not be used.)
Examples of heuristics:
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;
Examples of mobile specific DOCTYPEs:
-//OMA//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.2//EN
-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.1//EN
-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.0//EN
-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.1//EN
-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN)
the user agent has linearization or zoom capabilities or other features which allow it to present the content unaltered;
the URI of the response (following redirection or as indicated by the
Content-Location
HTTP header) indicates that the
resource is intended for mobile use (e.g. the domain is *.mobi,
wap.*, m.*, mobile.* or the leading portion of the path is /m/ or
/mobile/);
the response contains client-side scripts that may mis-operate if the resource is restructured;
the response is an HTML response and it includes
<link>
elements specifying
alternatives according to presentation media type.
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 B.2 Optimization based on Previous Server Interaction
Proxy forwards request with altered headers
Response is 200 OK containing a Vary: User-Agent
header
Proxy notices that behavior has changed and re-issues request with original headers
Response is 200 OK and proxy forwards it
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
values (hence the use of X-Device-
headers as discussed under
4.1.5 Alteration of HTTP Header 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.
It is noted that there are means which fall outside of the scope of this document for establishing user preferences with content transformation proxies. It is anticipated that proxies will maintain preferences on a user by user and Web site by Web site basis, and will change their behavior in the light of changing circumstances as discussed under 4.3.4 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header.
The editor acknowledges contributions of various kinds from members of the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Content Transformation Task Force.
The editor acknowledges significant written contributions from: