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

Re: [agenda] CT call Tuesday 8 April 2008

From: Aaron Kemp <kemp@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:53:10 -0400
Message-ID: <7452c7ef0804080653g7dc6aeeas12deddfecdd6b4fe@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Regrets, I won't be able to make the call today.

Aaron

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>
>  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, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
>  Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
>  IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.
>
>  Latest draft:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080403
>
>
>  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!
>  http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
>
>
>  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 13:54:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 April 2008 13:54:07 GMT