- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:11:30 +0200
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
Resolution taken:
- Remove Caveat on WML from scoping statement (it appears further down
in the document)
Todo: review the updated draft!
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080712
Francois.
15 Jul 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0009.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Francois, heiko, SeanP, jo
Regrets
Pontus, rob, Aaron, Matt, Bryan
Chair
francois
Scribe
Sean
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]New draft of CT Guidelines
2. [6]Review and close Jo's actions
* [7]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
New draft of CT Guidelines
<francois> [8]CT draft version 1l
[8]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080712
Francois: Thanks Jo for creating the new draft.
<jo> me!
<hgerlach> heiko
Francois: New draft goes in the right direction; looks fantastic;
seems clearer; like new table of contents.
Heiko: In 1.3 there is a mention that WML won't work.
... At the beginning of the document this sounds like a killer.
... could become major issue at beginning of document in scope.
Francois: I understand, but it needs to be said up front.
<jo> I think that is a reasonable presentational point. the point is
made later on
<jo> we could remove it from the scope statement
Heiko: The question is whether a WAP gateway is the same as a CT
proxy.
<hgerlach> +1
Francois: WML note could appear later on as long as it is somewhere.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: REmove Caveat on WML from scoping
statement
<francois> +1
<jo> +1
RESOLUTION: REmove Caveat on WML from scoping statement
Heiko: In 1.4, the requirements contain a link to the CT landscape.
Don't understand why we have 2 documents.
<jo> landscape document is not finished
Francois: Landscape document is not complete yet. Need to revisit it
in light of what we have done. Will be published as a note.
<hgerlach> What are the plans on that item?
Francois: Landscape document is not included in CT Guidelines for
size reasons.
Jo: I think it needs to be revisited too. Main reason for doing the
Landscape document was to kind of get warmed up and figure out what
we were talking about.
<jo> timescale is asap, like every thing else :-)
Francois: We're focusing on the CT Guidelines because it is most
important. Once we get to last call, we can go back to the Landscape
document.
Heiko: Next comment, in 3.1.4 the editorial note.
... Don't think the segmenting of a page will be affected by the
no-cache directive.
Francois: Do we really need a section on pagination?
<jo> the editorial note is there only because there is a possible
confusion
Francois: Following no-cache for pagination would mean that the CT
proxy could not paginate and the user could possibly not read the
page.
... My thinking is that section 3.1.4 is not needed.
Jo: Thinking as a content provider, the CT provider may not want to
send content that will be paginated.
... Willing to take the section out.
Heiko: Should the subsequent pages contain the no-cache directive.
Francois: Why don't we take this section out for now and see if
anyone has objections later.
<francois> ACTION: daoust to send a summary of the pagination note
(3.1.4) to the mailing-list [recorded in
[9]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-811 - Send a summary of the pagination
note (3.1.4) to the mailing-list [on François Daoust - due
2008-07-22].
Heiko: In 3.1.5.3, there is another editorial note that I would like
to understand.
... What does it mean about standing in the way?
Francois: What it means is that the proxy should not block the
origin server from providing different representations.
Jo: This is the point that the user should be able to express
his/her preferences to the origin server if possible. Need to think
about this more.
Heiko: 3.2.3.1--Use of Vary
... This content type of application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml is mentioned
here but not in the heuristics.
... should be mentioned in heuristics.
Francois: We took a resolution to remove mention of content types in
the document, but I can't remember why.
<francois> ACTION: daoust to dig in the archives to check reason not
to mention content types in the list of heuristics [recorded in
[10]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-812 - Dig in the archives to check reason
not to mention content types in the list of heuristics [on François
Daoust - due 2008-07-22].
Jo and Sean: We can't remember why either.
Heiko: 3.3.6. There are three question marks. What are these about?
Jo: Bad link, that's all.
... supposed to be a reference to mobileOK Basic.
Heiko: Linearization, why is this in heuristics?
Francois: Had discussions about this and decided to put it here.
Heiko: 3.3.6.2 Link Re-writing
Francois: There requirement was that it must be possible to make a
secure end to end connection, not that it must make a secure
end-to-end connection.
... That's why there is the requirement to notify the user.
Heiko: Don't like this.
... For a proxy it is impossible to have the end-to-end
connectivity.
Francois: That is why we mention the link re-writing since it will
break the end-to-end connectivity.
Heiko: Maybe add a sentence about the user being able to get
end-to-end connectivity as an option.
Francois: That's why we have the sentence about the user being able
to avoid the link re-writing.
... Could you write something up about your ideas about this
section, Heiko?
<hgerlach> +1
<francois> ACTION: heiko to draft some clearer wording of 3.3.6.2 on
HTTPS link re-writing [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-813 - Draft some clearer wording of
3.3.6.2 on HTTPS link re-writing [on Heiko Gerlach - due
2008-07-22].
Heiko: Comment about the example. Saw that you removed
allow/disallow list. OK, but I don't see how you can detect that a
200 response == a 406
Francois: Difficult to detect; can include a LINK element.
Heiko: Why remove allow/disallow lists?
Francois: Not completely resolved to remove the lists, but I see
Jo's point about not mentioning them at all since they cause a lot
of disagreements.
<hgerlach> +1ok
Francois: There is a heuristic in the document that allows them
without actually mentioning them.
Jo: I agree that 3.1.5.2 is very densely worded and I may try to
rewrite it, but it says what it means.
Heiko: Had some trouble understanding document without rereading it
several times.
Jo: If you have some problems with how something is worded, feel
free to contribute clearer wording.
... I believe that we are very close to getting there--I think one
more revision is needed; hopefully no more than 2 more.
Francois: Agree that we are close.
Review and close Jo's actions
<francois> ACTION-732?
<trackbot> ACTION-732 -- Jo Rabin to raise an issue on 4.4 of CT
draft 1j noting that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS
links and not HTTP links -- due 2008-04-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/732
[12] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/732
<francois> Close ACTION-732
<trackbot> ACTION-732 Raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting
that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not
HTTP links closed
<francois> ACTION-766?
<trackbot> ACTION-766 -- Jo Rabin to add note describing the
circumstances of choosing the X-Device prefix and explaining that
it's not necessarily the actual device headers and other weasel
words, yada yada -- due 2008-06-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/766
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/766
Francois: Action is done, discussion can be raised if needed.
<francois> Close ACTION-766
<trackbot> ACTION-766 Add note describing the circumstances of
choosing the X-Device prefix and explaining that it's not
necessarily the actual device headers and other weasel words, yada
yada closed
<francois> ACTION-770?
<trackbot> ACTION-770 -- Jo Rabin to remove "semi-persistent" in
3.2.3 -- due 2008-06-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/770
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/770
<francois> Close ACTION-770
<trackbot> ACTION-770 Remove "semi-persistent" in 3.2.3 closed
<francois> ACTION-777?
<trackbot> ACTION-777 -- Jo Rabin to edit 4.1.2 according to above
resolution -- due 2008-06-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/777
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/777
Francois: 770 could trigger more discussion.
<francois> Close ACTION-777
<trackbot> ACTION-777 Edit 4.1.2 according to above resolution
closed
<francois> ACTION-778?
<trackbot> ACTION-778 -- Jo Rabin to add the stuff on possible use
of OPTIONS to the appendix -- due 2008-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/778
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/778
<francois> Close ACTION-778
<trackbot> ACTION-778 Add the stuff on possible use of OPTIONS to
the appendix closed
<francois> ACTION-779?
<trackbot> ACTION-779 -- Jo Rabin to transcribe points 7 8 9 and 11
of ISSUE-223 into Scope for future work -- due 2008-06-23 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/779
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/779
<francois> Close ACTION-779
<trackbot> ACTION-779 Transcribe points 7 8 9 and 11 of ISSUE-223
into Scope for future work closed
<francois> ACTION-780?
<trackbot> ACTION-780 -- Jo Rabin to add text to section 4.4
referencing above resolution on mobikeOK -- due 2008-06-23 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/780
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/780
<francois> Close ACTION-780
<trackbot> ACTION-780 Add text to section 4.4 referencing above
resolution on mobikeOK closed
<francois> ACTION-781
<francois> ACTION-781?
<trackbot> ACTION-781 -- Jo Rabin to enact changes sugegsted by the
previous 4 resolutions -- due 2008-06-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/781
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/781
<francois> Close ACTION-781
<trackbot> ACTION-781 Enact changes sugegsted by the previous 4
resolutions closed
<francois> ACTION-782?
<trackbot> ACTION-782 -- Jo Rabin to draft text on which aspects of
the CT guidelines should be followed by e.g. Opera Mini -- due
2008-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/782
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/782
<francois> Close ACTION-782
<trackbot> ACTION-782 Draft text on which aspects of the CT
guidelines should be followed by e.g. Opera Mini closed
<jo> :-)
Francois: Everyone should review the document and send comments to
mailing list.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to dig in the archives to check reason not to
mention content types in the list of heuristics [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to send a summary of the pagination note
(3.1.4) to the mailing-list [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: heiko to draft some clearer wording of 3.3.6.2 on
HTTPS link re-writing [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 15:12:10 UTC