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

[agenda] CT Call Tuesday 22 July 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:27:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4884567D.3010303@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Hi all,

Back to a heavy agenda... Thanks for joining the call at 1400Z sharp!
We may skip some of the topics below if we run out of time.

Are we close to Last Call? Maybe not, but let's pretend, and see where 
that leads us.
As usual, proposed resolutions below are just that: "proposed" resolutions.

Francois.


-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: Pontus

Date: 2008-07-22T1400Z 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/080712


1. Appendix B: Example Transformation Interactions
--------------------------------------------------
The appendix needs to be filled out:
- process-wise, can we go to Last Call without filling out this section? 
(answer tomorrow)
- if we can, do we want to?
- need to action people to fill out the blanks


2. CT and direct choice of user experience
------------------------------------------
  Related issue:
  ISSUE-270

Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0062.html
  (and replies)
  (see also the minutes of last F2F)

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Cache-Control: no-transform directive is the 
directive an origin server should use when it directly handles the 
user's choice of representation.


3. HTTPS link re-writing
------------------------
Related action:
  ACTION-813 on Heiko

Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0011.html
  (and replies)

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: amend text in 3.3.6.2 with some clarification that 
"to avoid decryption and transformation of the resources the links refer 
to" means that the CT-proxy must be bypassed in practice.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: not willing to prescribe the details on how 
CT-proxies might implement this internally, stick to the text 3.3.6.2


4. No mention of Content-Types in 3.3.6
---------------------------------------
Related action:
  ACTION-812 on fd

Message:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0013.html

Given that the only Content-Type we could list in here that could be 
regarded as specific to the device is "application/xhtml+xml", I suggest 
we stick to our previous decision.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick to our decision not to mention examples of 
Content-Types in 3.3.6


5. meta http-equiv note in 3.2.2
--------------------------------
Discussion:
  - editorial note from Jo in latest draft
  - seconded by Sean in [1]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: not to confuse readers, move the note on meta 
http-equiv from 3.2.2 to an appendix on legacy servers


6. Pagination and caching directives
------------------------------------
Related action:
  ACTION-811 on fd

Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0014.html
  (and replies)

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: drop section 3.1.4 on the grounds that it is 
stepping into the behavior of regular proxies

or

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: complete second paragraph with something along the 
lines of "No matter if the expiry time of the response has elapsed, 
proxies should keep subsequent pages of a paginated response in cache so 
that it may server requests to these subsequent pages."


7. Link element section structure (3.2.3.2)
-------------------------------------------
Discussion:
  raised by Sean in [1]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: adopt Sean's proposal re. clarification of 3.2.3.2 
as defined in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0019.html


8. Receipt of Vary HTTP header (3.3.4)
--------------------------------------
Discussion:
  raised by Sean in [1]

In short:
- "always" is too strong a word.
- "that unaltered headers should be sent first unless the server 
modifies its behavior to no longer handle the unaltered headers" seems 
to be starting an infinite loop.

I wonder if we should not keep things simple here, meaning that the 
emphasis should be on re-sending the unaltered request and updating the 
heuristics. The notion of time is secondary here, IMO. I would propose:
  "so that unaltered headers are presented first if this resource is 
requested again"
... but don't particularly like this "again".


9. Typo fixes
-------------
Discussion:
  raised by Sean in [1]

Anything we need to review?


10. Allow/Disallow lists
------------------------
Related issue:
  ISSUE-242 (indirectly)

Discussion:
  see many of the latest emails exchanged on the mailing-list

A short (subjective) summary:
- section 3.1.5.2 leaves it up to CT-proxy vendors to use whatever means 
they may think of. Allow/Disallow lists typically fit in there.
- we do not want to prescribe how a CT-proxy works internally

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: allow/disallow lists fit in "heuristics of various 
kinds" in 3.1.5.2. Do not mention allow/disallow lists explicitly on the 
grounds that we do not want to prescribe how a CT-proxy works internally.


11. Persistent expression of user preferences
---------------------------------------------
Related issue:
  ISSUE-242

Discussion:
  see many of the latest emails exchanged on the mailing-list
  and in particular the most recent ones:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0019.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0063.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0021.html

A short (subjective) summary:
- the old 3.2.1 Control by the User is partly in 3.1.5.3, and partly 
disappeared (but should be reintroduced).
- the 3.2.3 Control by administrative arrangements disappeared. The 
Allow/Disallow lists should be handled by one of the previous topics. 
Terms and conditions remain.
- user preferences should be on a per Web Site basis.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mention Administrative arrangements as out of scope 
in a non-normative appendix


12. Where we are. Where we want to go
-------------------------------------
- about to be ready for Last Call?
- publish a second Public Working Draft in the meantime?
- schedule?


13. Next calls
--------------
Suggest the same decision as the one we took for the main body of the 
Working Group:
- call on 29 July
- review on 29 July the need to have a call on 5 August
- no call on 12 August
- no call on 19 August


14. AOB
-------


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0019.html
Received on Monday, 21 July 2008 09:27:33 UTC

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