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

[agenda] CT call Tuesday 15 April 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:42:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4803514E.8030400@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

As I write this agenda, the draft has not been published as FPWD yet, 
but that should be done before tomorrow's call.

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

Date: 2008-04-15T1400Z 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. Doc Status
- published as FPWD (well, should be)
- next steps:
   * address editorial notes
   * rewrite unclear parts, change doc structure if needed
   * use POWDER?
- other discussions/topics you think we need to have? Any remark on the 
way to proceed?

2. Close without much discussion
ACTION-625 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
ACTION-731 on jo: Enact changes resolved in this meeting

Check your actions at:

3. Alteration of request bodies (§4.1.2)
Last message on the subject:

- no need for examples in the doc?
- something along the lines of (but clearer than!):
"The CT-proxy MUST ensure that preceding transformations stay 
transparent from the point of view of the content provider, and MAY 
change the request method and body of a request that originates from a 
transformed web page accordingly."
- the doc is clumsy on requests that originate from previously 
transformed responses and re-route via the CT-proxy

Related actions:
ACTION-680 on rob: Provide a pseudo-code example of form transformation 
for CT document
-> may not be needed after all
ACTION-681 on fd: Ask aaron kemp for clarification of the character 
encoding issue

4. Linearization or zoom capability (§4.1.2)
raised by SeanP:

- amend/remove it?
- has nothing to do in §4.1 (Proxy treatment of request) anyway, but 
rather in §4.4 (Proxy Response to User Agent)

5. Users preferences
- list "request a restructured version of a desktop presentation" as one 
of the examples in 3.2.1?
- append a bullet first list of 4.1.2: "any knowledge it has of user's 
- rewrite second point of "Proxies should not alter HTTP requests 
unless" to mention "user's preferences"

6. Control by Administrative or Other arrangements (3.2.3)
- out of scope, so, to be consistent, we should only reference Control 
by User and Control By Server no reference to this in other parts of the 
doc: rewrite first bullet in 4.1.2?
- Simplify title to "Control by Other Arrangements"?

7. ACTION-718: Summarize and continue discussion re Ajax/XHR requests
- write a note (end of 4.2?) mentioning that responses sent to XHR calls 
should not use a content type that may be subject to transformation?
- append something like "the response contains client-side scripts that 
may break if the page gets adapted" to the list of heuristics in 4.4?

8. New actions needed
Remaining editorial notes and issues need to be addressed.
Some are not yet linked to any existing action.

9. AOB
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 12:43:28 UTC

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