W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > April 2008

FW: [agenda] CT call Tuesday 8 April 2008

From: Magnus Lönnroth <magnus.lonnroth@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:53:26 +0200
Message-ID: <A91F30A632473A47B40C18D2B107CA6F056C0276@esealmw105.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

I hope to attend this call, but I have another activity with a high risk of running overtime and colliding with it. I therefore send my regrets pre-emptively - but with any luck they wont be needed..



-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francois Daoust
Sent: den 7 april 2008 16:40
To: public-bpwg-ct
Subject: [agenda] CT call Tuesday 8 April 2008

Apologies for the late agenda...

The latest draft is the candidate for publication as First Public Working Draft. Please review it, and send/prepare your comments!

Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: rob, bryan?

Date: 2008-04-08T1400Z for 60mn
Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +, +44.117.370.6152 Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.

Latest draft:

Proposed agenda:

1. Presentation of the draft
Compared to previous draft:
- the actual guidelines didn't change, of course.
- some paragraphs moved in first sections. The "Terminology" and "Requirements" section were created on the ashes of the former "Guidelines" section.
- the editorial notes were re-written to make sense to people outside of the task force, and separated from the "real" text when they were embedded.

2. Any objection to publication as FPWD?
-> resolution to publish the draft as it stands (*)
... where (*) links to changes based on 3 and 4 below: we may want to rename the doc and clarify the abstract before publication.

Other than 3 and 4, resolutions during the call may not be part of the FPWD, unless changes can be done in a snap.

3. About the title
Dom suggested we included a reference to "mobile" in the doc's title.
Although the doc may be used in a more generic context:
- our motivations are mobile
- it would give the doc more exposure among the mobile community
-> Should we rename the draft to something like "Content Transformation 
Guidelines for the Mobile Web"?

4. About the abstract
Dom (again!) suggested we come up with something less obscure, along the 
lines of:
"This document provides guidance for content providers and content
transformation proxies on how they can better work together to deliver
Web content to mobile devices."
-> Works for everyone? Exact text?

5. Control by Administrative or Other Arrangements (§3.2.3)
About allow and disallow lists:
-> resolve on some text to replace the editorial note or action someone 
to provide such a text based on:
- allow/disallow lists are impractical for Content Providers
- allow/disallow lists are difficult to maintain accurately

6. Proxy decision to transform (§4.1.2)
- idempotency of GET requests editorial note.
-> resolve or action someone to change it to a real note
- duplicate requests to compare responses.
-> OK to state this must be avoided as a generic practice?

7. Reminder - pending/on-going actions
-> remember your actions!

8. Close without much discussion
I'm not saying we should not discuss because the actions are on me ;), 
it just happens to be actions done or resolved somehow:
ACTION-325 on fd: Initiate discuss on the exception wording ref 
dangerous content
ACTION-685 on fd: Investigate embedded original headers in altered 
requests (message/http), external ref to original headers 
application/external-body) and/or use of WARNING headers
ACTION-686 on fd: Will organise the next CTTF Editors' meeting

9. New actions needed
Remaining editorial notes and issues need to be addressed.
Some are not yet linked to any existing action. Who may propose 
text/ideas for further discussion and resolution?

10. AOB
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 10:55:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:29 UTC