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

[minutes] CT Call Tuesday 15 July 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:11:30 +0200
Message-ID: <487CBE22.7040409@w3.org>
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

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