- From: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:04:25 -0500
- To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
The minutes of today's Content Transformation Task Force
teleconference are available here:
http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html
Text version below.
Please note that your poor scribe had some trouble distinguishing
between Magnus and SeanP, and while I think they were all corrected
some may remain.
-Matt
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
BPWG Content Transformation Task Force Teleconference
4 Dec 2007
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Dec/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Jo, Magnus, SeanP, Andrew, Aaron_IRC_Only, Heiko
Regrets
Bryan
Chair
Jo
Scribe
Jo, Jo, Matt
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]HTTP Liaison
2. [6]Leader
3. [7]Draft 1b
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<jo> Date: 2007-12-04
<jo> Scribe: Jo
HTTP Liaison
->
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Dec/0000.h
tml agenda
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Dec/0000.html
Jo: I dropped Mark Nottingham a note but no response yet
... dom suggested someone in W3C which I will follow up
Leader
Jo: still no volunteers - I _really_ don't have time to do this!
Magnus: I think you should carry on Jo
jo: :-(
Draft 1b
->
[10]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-draf
ts/Guidelines/071124 Draft 1b
[10] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/071124
Magnus: Stand by what I said last week to wit that Chap 2 is a
little dry and needs some examples etc.
jo: I think we discussed that we'd want to extend HTTP Cache-Control
to allow gradations of no-transform
... OK I don't know that we are ready to RESOLVE this
... let's put this to one side for now and look at the requirements
[Heiko joins call and introduces himself]
->
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-draf
ts/Guidelines/071124#Requirements REquirements Section
[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/071124#Requirements
<Magnus> Example text for 2.1.1: Some CT proxy implementations may
allow end-users to select personal preferences. For example, a CT
proxy may allow a user to replace all embedded images with
thumbnails.
jo: at 2.1 enable service features - need clarification of what
service features means
andrew: select adaptation or not
jo: not sure that we are going to offer such a feature
magnus: sure, but this is an example of how it may be elaborated to
ease the flow of reading
jo: service features probably means gradation of trancoding features
... 2.1.2 "highest quality representation" - this is subjective? no?
andrew: highest resolution?
seanp: what he is getting at is to exploit device capabilities
rather than go for an LCD approach
heiko: need to set the bar as to whether this is a high tier or low
tier which will vary
... need to decide whether to go for marketing or technical approcah
... not just rely on device capabilities
... is a mobile phone capable of rendering the content or not,
sometimes this is to do with user experience and that is a marketing
issue
<matt> ScribeNick: Matt
Jo: Yes, that's probably right, but I think the exact nature of how
a transforming proxy lays things out is a different issue than say
what Sean has construed it as. (?)
... In 2.1.2, we're saying if a device has capabilities that you can
exploit that you should exploit them when you are transforming
things.
s/magnus: what/sean: What/
Jo: 2.1.2 "compatible" results in a usable experience. In reflowing
this text, I would construe compatible and usable to mean in terms
of the DI glossary a "functional experience" -- the user can
perceive what the author intended. (vs. a harmonized user
experience.)
heiko: We use 'use case completion rate', a number of use cases that
must be completed...
Jo: Yes, that's an interesting formalization. How would we get at
that in this document? What we're looking for is something that
probably doesn't have usecases as such.
heiko: In general you have a use case for any page, any time the
user is accessing the page via content-adaptation that the user must
be able to complete the use case for that page.
Jo: Yes, that makes sense, except that we have no control over the
use cases. We have practically unlimited content -- that is, the
Web. I don't think we are intending to write use cases here.
... Any suggestions for scoping as suggested by this sentence?
<jo> s/https/https or POSTs
heiko: Regarding 2.1.2, the 'highest quality' -- we're never going
to give the highest quality, we have to reduce the image size for
instance. In the end we're looking for the best on the phone. Never
the highest quality.
Andrew: I take your point, but we should differentiate between
optimization (speeding delivery) and content transformation
(enabling pages designed for a large screen to be presented on a
small screen device).
heiko: Did we define content somewhere before? Maybe this is
required somewhere.
Andrew: In my view it's an important differentiation.
Jo: That's not necessarily the case in my view -- that's the heart
of why we need relaxation on no-transform.
<jo> [note to change highest quality -> functional user experience]
Magnus: I agree with Heiko, in 2.1.2 it needs to be scoped out for
different types of content. For example, image type makes perfect
sense to deliver highest quality. Markup itself, we might want to
reduce it in size for instance.
Heiko: Nevertheless, we should compress images.
<scribe> ACTION: Magnus to suggest some text for 2.1.2 [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-605 - Suggest some text for 2.1.2 [on
Magnus Lönnroth - due 2007-12-11].
Jo: 2.1.3 CT-Awareness.
Heiko: What does CT awareness in browsers mean?
Jo: A browser can make it known to a CT proxy that it is capable of
using the guidelines specified in this document.
... i.e. it knows how to do or not do things.
... I'm not sure this is a requirement, but let's leave it in for
the time being.
... 2.1.4, user agent id and capabilities disclosure.
Heiko: If we are asking the user to configure the user for it's
needs, then we don't need our solution. The user will always be able
to solve "how would you like it?" -- if we have a tool it should
work without user interaction.
Jo: I think Bryan is saying 'MAY'
Andrew: I agree with Heiko, we don't want to push all the decisions
to the user. What we're talking about here might be more of a
made-for-mobile page vs a desktop page and you might want to give a
choice. The majority of the cases the page will be made for one
device or another and the CT can be automatically applied.
SeanP: I took the 2.1.4 statement to mean that the user can tell the
CT Proxy whether they want the desktop or mobile version.
Jo: That's not really what it says though here, is it? I think what
Bryan is saying that the user can choose to either have the original
user agent disclosed or not.
SeanP: Yes, it does mention user-agent. I was thinking more of the
capabilities part, but yes...
Jo: There is a difference between the capabilities of the user-agent
and the representation you're going to get.
... Because it's a mobile browser it doesn't mean you always want a
mobile presentation, that's not strongly related to the user-agent
(except that we know if the user-agent is capable of rendering a
desktop representation). I don't think the text is representing that
clearly.
... Perhaps a note saying we must be able to make a distinction
between what the user wants and forcing a mobile presentation.
... 2.1.5 original representation availability
Heiko: If you are caching the CP response, it may already be
depending on the user-agent, so maybe the response is not related
when you resend the request. (?)
Jo: I don't think that's what this is saying.
... I think it's just saying if you've done some work on it, you
should hang on to it, presumably in case it's required later. But I
think I find this section questionable. I'm not sure why this is
necessary.
Heiko: When the user goes to some portal and buys the wallpaper for
instance. We optimize the wallpaper size, then he'll never have the
wallpaper in the resolution he likes, so he must be able to request
the original wallpaper.
Jo: Right, but what is missing from this is a mechanism for
re-requesting.
Heiko: Well, if you have a one-time URL, it'll be expired...
Jo: For this to be viable I'd have to have a mechanism for "I
requested this from you, please give me the original" -- which isn't
in HTTP.
Heiko: Today it's done with a reload request.
... If the user hits reload it sends the original content.
Jo: This is achieved by the browser sending a cache-control: no
request, right?
Heiko: The second time it must cache the original response.
<scribe> ACTION: Heiko to detail reload re: section 2.1.5 original
representation availability [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-606 - Detail reload re: section 2.1.5
original representation availability [on Heiko Gerlach - due
2007-12-11].
<jo> ACTION: Heiko to detail what he means by "reload" request on
mailing list [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-607 - Detail what he means by
\"reload\" request on mailing list [on Heiko Gerlach - due
2007-12-11].
SeanP: I think we could combine 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 so the user could
change their preferences, and re-request the document and get the
original representation.
... But is that something we want to cover in the document?
Jo: I think it's getting a bit elaborate.
... I think what bothers me is that the proxy has to keep the
original representation for some amount of time... there's a lot of
complexity in there that we probably won't be able to address at
this level.
... The wallpaper case could be handled by having the host know that
this shouldn't be reformatted.
... Was hoping to not get into complex protocols...
SeanP: Agreed.
Jo: Let's each send detailed comments to the list on the remaining
portions of section 2.
<scribe> ACTION: All to read and send detailed comments to the list
on the remaining portions of section 2. [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - All
Jo: Adjourned.
<hgerlach> thanks, bye
<jo> Scribe: Jo, Matt
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: All to read and send detailed comments to the list on
the remaining portions of section 2. [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Heiko to detail reload re: section 2.1.5 original
representation availability [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Heiko to detail what he means by "reload" request on
mailing list [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Magnus to suggest some text for 2.1.2 [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.128
([21]CVS log)
$Date: 2007/12/04 15:59:31 $
_________________________________________________________
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13
Check for newer version at [22]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/Magnus/Sean/
Succeeded: s/magnus: what/seanp: what/
FAILED: s/magnus: what/sean: What/
FAILED: s/https/https or POSTs/
Succeeded: s/Magnus/SeanP/
Succeeded: s/Magnus: But/SeanP: But/
Succeeded: s/Magnus: I/SeanP: I/
Found Scribe: Jo
Inferring ScribeNick: jo
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching previous ScribeNick pattern: <M
att> ...
Found ScribeNick: Matt
Found Scribe: Jo, Matt
Scribes: Jo, Jo, Matt
ScribeNicks: Matt, jo
Default Present: Magnus, jo, SeanP, +078997aaaa, Andrew, +078997aabb, M
att, +049211aacc, Heiko
Present: Jo Magnus SeanP Andrew Aaron_IRC_Only Heiko
Regrets: Bryan
Agenda: [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Dec/
0000.html
WARNING: Could not parse date. Unknown month name "12": 2007-12-04
Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004"
Got date from IRC log name: 4 Dec 2007
Guessing minutes URL: [24]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.htm
l
People with action items: all heiko magnus
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Dec/0000.html
[24] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-bpwg-minutes.html
End of [25]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 16:06:07 UTC