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

[agenda] CT Call Tuesday 8 July 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:08:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4871C0FA.6050002@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Hi CT TF!

I failed to send a summary of last week's discussion and further 
thoughts on our remaining ISSUE-242. My apologies :-(

This week's agenda is again short in terms of topics. I don't expect 
either that we'll take final resolutions on this right now.


-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: none

Date: 2008-07-08T1400Z 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/080606


1. Allow-Disallow lists
-----------------------
- See minutes from last week:
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-bpwg-minutes.html
- See thread starting at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0027.html

Possible choices:
a/ leave mention of Allow/Disallow lists in the section on 
administrative arrangements, and thus leave it out of scope of the 
guidelines

I'm fine with that, but I just have the feeling that we can find a 
reasonable solution to include them within the guidelines.


b/ integrate Allow/Disallow lists in the 
algorithm-that-is-not-to-be-an-algorithm for the treatment of HTTP 
requests in 4.1.2. It would then be in scope.

The agreed (non-)algorithm for the treatment of the HTTP request states 
(it may not be the final wording):
"otherwise assess (by unspecified means) whether the 200 response is a 
bogus one"

Allow/Disallow lists would naturally fit in "by unspecified means".
Note that this would mean the scope of such lists is the assessment of 
whether an HTTP response from the server is a "rejected" response or not.

In particular, it's not the same as having a list that says "for this 
particular resource, do not take the Cache-Control: no-transform 
directive into account and apply transformation".


c/ do not mention Allow/Disallow lists at all.

If we have something such as "by unspecified means", we may as well not 
mention Allow/Disallow lists at all.

My preference goes for b/ over a/ over c/

The note on intractability caused by such lists in current section 3.2.3 is:
- relevant and carefully worded for some: it is impractical for a 
content provider to register his site on many different operators.
- irrelevant and far too strong for others: content providers already 
have strong liaisons with mobile operators.


2. Persistent expression of user preferences
--------------------------------------------
See Jo's F2F points commented by Sean and me:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0002.html


3. AOB
------
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 07:09:30 UTC

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