ISSUE-260: Do the guidelines address Client/Proxy solutions?

Client/Proxy black box

Do the guidelines address Client/Proxy solutions?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies

Raised by:

François Daoust

Opened on:

2008-06-13

Description:

Raised as an issue so that we don't forget to address this during the F2F in Sophia...

From the point of view of a Content Provider, a Client/Proxy solution (such as Opera Mini) behaves like a black box, and as such should be regarded as a regular user agent.

But, even black holes do let information escape (at 1000 bytes per second according to last calculations, or so I read, but I'm stepping out of topic here), and so the black box may "leak".

Typically, the Proxy part may still behave (at least a bit) as a non-transparent proxy, and for instance may hide the originating IP address of the client. In such a case, the guidelines may partially apply (e.g. add an X-Forwarded-For HTTP header).

Jo suggests to explain this in an Appendix.

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-678 on Sean Patterson to Raise and issue on the distinction between a CT proxy and (say) Opera Mini - due 2008-03-10, closed

Related emails:

1. [minutes] BPWG F2F in Sophia, day 1 (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-17)
2. Content Transformation Guidelines - preparation for the F2F (from fd@w3.org on 2008-06-13)
3. ISSUE-260 (Client/Proxy black box): Do the guidelines address Client/Proxy solutions? [Content Transformation Guidelines] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-06-13)

Related notes:

Display change log