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

Re: [agenda] CT Call Tuesday 4 November 2008

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:08:44 +0000
Message-ID: <490B49AC.2040500@mtld.mobi>
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
CC: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

 > I will try my best but may have to send my regrets for the call.
 > Jo, would you mind chairing if I can't join?
 >
No problem

Jo

On 31/10/2008 17:57, Francois Daoust wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is an early agenda for next CT call.
> 
> I will try my best but may have to send my regrets for the call.
> Jo, would you mind chairing if I can't join?
> 
> I think we'll all have switched to winter time by Tuesday. The call is 
> at your usual local time.
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> -----
> Chair: François or Jo
> Staff Contact: François
> Known regrets: none
> 
> Date: 2008-11-04T1500Z 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.
> 
> 
> 1. Where we are
> -----
> - We reviewed and resolved most of the remaining Last Call comments.
>  Minutes and resolutions:
>   http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html
>  Any questions?
> - Jo to work on an updated draft
> - Responses need to be drafted for comments for which we resolved no:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0051.html
> 
> 
> Resolutions we took during the F2F on 4.1.5 Alteration of HTTP Header 
> Values address most of the comments, but not all of them. The remaining 
> ones are below.
> 
> [Note: the links to the LC Tracker below are Member-only, the last call 
> comments I refer to are publicly available using the annotated view:
>  http://tinyurl.com/634lue ]
> 
> 2. LC-2038 - is it a list of Best Practices? Be explicit it that's the case
> -----
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. LC-2049 - forbid the alteration of the request when the URI follows 
> some mobile pattern (*.mobi, wap.*, ...)
> -----
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. LC-2053 - classes of devices
> -----
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. LC-2072 - what is a restructured desktop experience?
> -----
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. LC-2073 - heuristics and web sites
> -----
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. LC-2040 - X-Device-* should be in an Internet Draft
> -----
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040 
> 
> 
> 
> Following items are triggered by a discussion with Eduardo on the list:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0040.html
> 
> Bullet points quickly attempt to summarize some of the ideas exchanged. 
> Please refer to the emails for a more accurate description.
> 
> 
> 8. Unclear form encoding must be preserved for the server
> -----
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0045.html
> ... Search for "2. Matching the capabilities of the user agent is 
> necessary"
> 
> - Current wording makes it unclear that we do not envision that a server 
> may receive an encoding different from the one it expects when a form is 
> submitted
> - Proposal: clarify the text along the lines of what we had in a 
> previous draft:
>  "Proxies should not alter HTTP requests unless: [...]
>     2. an unaltered request body is not consistent with the origin
> server's requirements in respect of Internet content type or character
> encoding (as may happen, for example, if the proxy has transformed an
> HTML form that results in this request);"
> 
> 
> 9. Character encoding
> -----
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0043.html
> 
> - changing character encoding is not reliable, problematic when there's 
> a form involved (on-line orders, banking, e-mail, timetable).
> - changing the encoding to another one that is also supported by the 
> client is not forbidden.
> 
> 
> 10. User experience
> -----
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0046.html
> 
> - algorithm proposed to precise what "improving the user experience" may 
> mean from a technological point of view based on HTTP headers, UAProf, 
> and DDR, and priorities among capabilities.
> - cannot and does not attempt to cover everything.
> - points of disagreement on the details
> - we resolved to leave this out of scope
> 
> 
> 11. Keep it dry
> -----
> - Normative statements must be testable.
> - Focus on the statements, leave ambiguous statements out of the spec.
> - Either we define precise algorithms based on heuristics, either we 
> stay silent. If we can't define heuristics, then remove feel-good 
> sentences altogether.
> - In short, don't mention something if we don't address it completely
> 
> Examples:
> - "A proxy SHOULD strive for the best possible user experience that the 
> user agent supports"... not good.
> - "It SHOULD only alter the format, layout, dimensions etc. to match the 
> specific capabilities of the user agent"... what are we trying to say?
> 
> - On the other hand, we could come up with a full appendix (?) on common 
> dangers associated with re-structuring:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0046.html
> (end of the email).
> 
> 
> 12. Capability negociation on the client side
> -----
> - not mentioned in Scope for Future Work
> - add a reference to CC/PP?
> 
> 
> 13. AOB
> ------
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Title is still not good
> -----
> But that's not on the agenda
> We'll see in the end if some magic title reveals itself.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 18:09:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 October 2008 18:09:38 GMT