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

[minutes] CT Call Tuesday 11 November 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:14:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4919BD77.6020105@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/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html

... and pasted as text below.

No call next week, meaning next call is on 25 November 2008.
Please use the list to send comments on the new draft for discussion. 
I'll try to gather those that need to be actioned afterwards.


Resolutions taken during the call
-----
On the Content-Location header:
- No need to mention Content-Location header

On OMA STI:
- ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our document but may have 
interest for a general transformation vocab

On Character encoding:
- On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited it and we 
still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid bugs" when 
transforming between character encoding (which we don't intend to say) 
but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so that character encoding is 
specifically referred to
- do not discuss alteration of request body in respect of character encoding

[ Note that we had indeed resolved something similar to the end of the 
first resolution on 30 September 2008:
- On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes 
partial" to LC-2023
  http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-minutes.html#item05 ]


Francois.


11 Nov 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0018.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, tomhume, rob, SeanP, Eduardo, jo

    Regrets
    Chair
           francois

    Scribe
           rob

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Welcome to Eduardo Casais
          2. [6]New Draft
          3. [7]Content-Location
          4. [8]OMA Standard Transcoding Interface
          5. [9]Draft responses to "resolved no" comments
          6. [10]LC-2053 - classes of devices
          7. [11]Unclear form encoding must be preserved for the server
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Welcome to Eduardo Casais

    francois: Welcome Eduardo Casais
    ... already known to us from a host of useful comments on the
    mailing-list

    [round of introductions]

    Eduardo: I work for a small mobile content developer in Switzerland,
    previously worked for Nokia where I was involved in many things
    including UA-Prof

    <francois> [13]New draft of CT

      [13] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107

New Draft

    jo: I could talk at length on this!

    <francois> [14]Jo's changelog and discussion

      [14] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0017.html

    jo: I hope it includes all the resolutions so far
    ... Hope to gather together anything missing (eg rewriting HTTPS
    links holes) in the next 2-3 days
    ... considerable polish is required but would be a waste of time
    until the substance is stable, which may take another draft
    ... it will be useful if everyone gives this draft a deep review
    ... santiy-check and make sure it says what we agreed
    ... check for consistency
    ... tighten the nuts and bolts (eg any shoulds that could be musts?)
    ... and check if clarity can be improved

    francois: everyone should send comments to the mailing-list
    ... just like Eduardo has been doing

Content-Location

    francois: introduced by Rob on the mailing-list.

    rob: Yes. Don't think there is anything to do, but comes from a long
    discussion, so I wanted to check whether there was a reason not to
    include a Content-Location header in the response passed downstream
    to the phone

    jo: do we need to propose text around this?

    francois: Rob's said he doesn't think there is anything to propose
    here

    Eduardo: RFC says the value of Content-Location also defines the
    base URI of the entity

    francois: that's also one of my fears
    ... and <link> is more correct

    rob: I just wanted to see if anyone has a need for this at all
    ... and so far I've heard no reason to want it

    francois: could be a way to pass the canonical URI to the client for
    bookmarking

    rob: I tried that on a real phone and it doesn't work

    francois: correct, no-one uses that right now

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No need to mention Content-Location header

    francois: does anyone want us to go to TAG to check?

    <francois> +1

    <tomhume> +1

    +1

    RESOLUTION: No need to mention Content-Location header

OMA Standard Transcoding Interface

    francois: no overlap at the moment between OMA doc and our doc
    ... OMA doc is an interface for a server, not for a proxy
    ... so there is no incompatibility and no overlap
    ... but there is some media-transcoding vocab defined that could be
    useful in future work

    jo: can we resolve LC-2051 now then?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our
    document but may have interest for a general transformation vocab

    +1

    <tomhume> +1

    <francois> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <jo> +1

    RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our document but
    may have interest for a general transformation vocab

    <francois> Close ACTION-868

    <trackbot> ACTION-868 Review OMA STI to see if there's something
    relevant for CT for LC-2051 closed

Draft responses to "resolved no" comments

    francois: reminder to everyone to propose responses back to
    contributors ASAP

LC-2053 - classes of devices

    <francois> [15]LC-2053

      [15] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053

    francois: postponed LC-2053 response recently
    ... about classes of device
    ... and section 4.1.5 of the old draft

    <francois> [16]LC-2053

      [16] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053

    <francois>
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidel
    ines-20080801/2053

      [17] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053

    jo: Eduardo can you please clarify what you want from LC-2053

    <jo> ACTION: casais to review LC-2053 and clarify to group [recorded
    in [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-880 - Review LC-2053 and clarify to group
    [on Eduardo Casais - due 2008-11-18].

Unclear form encoding must be preserved for the server

    francois: again triggered by one of Eduardo's comments
    ... current wording is unclear about if a CT-proxy must roll-back
    encoding changes made in responses when a form is submitted

    jo: which exceptions are we talking about?

    francois: section 4.1.5

    <francois> [19]Alteration of HTTP Header Values

      [19] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-altering-header-values

    francois: the previous draft talked about Content-Encoding changes
    in the body, this has been removed

    jo: we previously talked about transforming request bodies but
    decided we didn't add much (if anything) to the requirements that
    already exist
    ... do we have anything to say on something happening today that we
    want to stop happening?

    Eduardo: the mowser transcoder doesn't handle Character-Encoding
    properly
    ... eg UTF-8 characters end up as Latin-1

    jo: mowser hasn't been updated for a while and has lots of bugs,
    this is a known bug

    Eduardo: Vodafone ES and PT transcoders don't handle numerical
    entities well

    jo: but these are clear bugs, not debatable ambiguities
    ... so avoiding carelessness or error is not part of our
    specification

    francois: we talked about adding Encoding to the appendix E list
    ... as merely a list of heuristics

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
    have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
    than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding so we
    have decided to leave it

    francois: was written as "recoded or restructured"

    jo: I remember something about this but could not find a resolution
    to follow when writing the latest draft
    ... so here is one:
    ... I don't think we need to talk about transforming the encoding of
    a request body

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
    have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
    than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding and
    to note that this is an example of a heuristic that the proxy may
    take into account when transforming content if it thinks that the
    encoding provided may mis-operate when presented on the client

    francois: the only case is when the encoding of the response has
    been changed and the client is then submitting a form from that
    response

    Eduardo: this isn't a heuristic, it's a rule

    rob: yes, the rule is if you change Character-Encoding in one
    direction (server-to-phone) you have to change it in the other
    direction (phone-to-server) as well

    Jo: we're not in the business of specifying how to transform images,
    HTML etc, so we don't need to specify this either
    ... this is not our job to write a "building transcoders for
    dummies" book

    francois: I second that point, we don't need to expand on that in
    the Guidelines

    jo: do we want to add this to 4.2.8.1? Because it's not a heuristic

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
    have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
    than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding
    (which we don't intend to say) and add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so
    that character encoding is specifically referred to

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <tomhume> +1

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
    have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
    than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding
    (which we don't intend to say) but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so
    that character encoding is specifically referred to

    RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited
    it and we still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid
    bugs" when transforming between character encoding (which we don't
    intend to say) but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so that character
    encoding is specifically referred to

    <jo> ACTION: jo to enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding
    character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc.
    [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-881 - Enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref
    adding character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions
    etc. [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-11-18].

    Eduardo: do we need to point out the requirements of what the server
    expects?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: do not discuss alteration of request body
    in respect of character encoding

    francois: do we need to mention that altering the request-body isn't
    envisaged except "rolling back" changes like Character-Encoding?

    <francois> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <tomhume> +1

    rob: there are a few other changes that need rolling back too - for
    example pasting back together inputs that got split amongst
    sub-pages

    +1

    RESOLUTION: do not discuss alteration of request body in respect of
    character encoding

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: casais to review LC-2053 and clarify to group
    [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: jo to enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding
    character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc.
    [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 17:15:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 November 2008 17:15:11 GMT