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

[minutes] Minutes of BPWG CT Task Force Call 2008-09-02

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:17:36 +0100
Message-ID: <48BD5910.9080806@mtld.mobi>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

The minutes of today's call are at [1] and as text below;

Jo

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

         Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

02 Sep 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0000.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Bryan_Sullivan, HGerlach, Pontus, SeanP, jo, rob_finean

    Regrets
           Francois

    Chair
           Jo

    Scribe
           rob

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Comments on Last Call of CT Guidelines
          2. [6]LC-2043
          3. [7]LC-2025
          4. [8]LC-2065
          5. [9]LC-2018
          6. [10]LC-2066
          7. [11]LC-2050
          8. [12]LC-2003
          9. [13]LC-2034
         10. [14]AOB
      * [15]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <trackbot> Date: 02 September 2008

    <hgerlach> +1

    <jo> scribe: rob

    <jo> [16]LC Comment Tracker

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

Comments on Last Call of CT Guidelines

    Jo: Starting at LC-2043

LC-2043

    jo: Mark Nottingham makes a comment similar to LC-2043
    ... saying decide if this is Guidelines or Protocol - can't be both

    SeanP: agrees with Jo's sentiments that most of the document is
    guidelines
    ... we're echoing common practise rather than specifying a protocol

    Bryan: but mentioning common practise is kind of recommending it as
    a protocol

    jo: I could take this back to the comments list ...

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to get back on LC-2043 and simialr pointing out what
    we are trying to achieve and asking for clarification [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-828 - Get back on LC-2043 and simialr
    pointing out what we are trying to achieve and asking for
    clarification [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-09].

    jo: but I think guidelines are as far as we want to go with this
    document - definitely not a protocol definition

LC-2025

    hgerlach: we call the document guidelines but as LC-2025 says, there
    is little guidance for Eduardo

    <jo> ACTION: HGerlach to detail his thoughts arising from discussion
    of LC-2025 [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-829 - Detail his thoughts arising from
    discussion of LC-2025 [on Heiko Gerlach - due 2008-09-09].

    jo: point of the document is not to prevent egregious behaviour but
    to provide a framework so the parties can understand and control
    what happens

    <hgerlach> will we agree the responses before sending it out?

    Bryan: this is a summary comment, there are more comments later that
    define specifics

    SeanP: would it be easier to hit the specific comments 1st?

    jo: maybe, but good to see them in tracker's order in overview
    ... skipping LC-2075

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

      [19] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

LC-2065

    <jo> [20]LC-2065

      [20] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065

    Jo: I did respond to Dennis on this informally

    Bryan: I'd like to review Jo's response and follow up

    <jo> ACTION: Bryan to review correspondence with Dennis cf LC-2065
    and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a proposed
    response to Dennis [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-830 - Review correspondence with Dennis cf
    LC-2065 and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a
    proposed response to Dennis [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-09-09].

    Bryan: I'll follow up on the public list

LC-2018

    <jo> [22]LC-2018

      [22] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018

    jo: This is about the document's title

    SeanP: there is a good point here, but I still don't know what to
    change the title to!

    Bryan: we'd call this "Content Adaptation" rather than "Content
    Transformation"
    ... but capturing the fact that you are adapting for a limited
    browser might be useful in the title

    jo: but "Content Adaptation" is commonly used as an origin-server
    technology already

    <jo> Content Transformation by Proxies?

    <SeanP> HTTP proxies?

    hgerlach: we don't change the content, we change the layout
    ... not convinced we need to change the title

    <hgerlach> +1

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the title of the document to:
    Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies: Guidelines

    <hgerlach> how about transducer instead???

    <SeanP> How about "Guidelines for Content Transformation by HTTP
    Proxies?

    jo: given importance of "no-transform", transformation must be the
    right word

    Bryan: is the word Guidelines essential?

    jo: maybe not

    <hgerlach> How about orientation guide?

    SeanP: move Guidelines to a subtitle like "Guidelines for content
    providers, network operators and ..."

    <jo> ACTION: SeanP to continue discussion of the title on the list
    [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SeanP

    <jo> ACTION: Patterson to continue discussion of the title on the
    list [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-831 - Continue discussion of the title on
    the list [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-09-09].

LC-2066

    <SeanP> Another suggestion: Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies:
    Guidelines for CT Operators and Content Providers

    <jo> (assigned to Jo)

    jo: I'll respond to this

LC-2050

    jo: we do distinguish between these but don't make much use of the
    definitions
    ... and may be difficult to define it formally

    SeanP: possibility we could remove them? It's tricky to define
    formally

    jo: would anybody like to see what the impact of removing the
    definitions is?

    SeanP: yes, I'll do that

    <jo> ACTION: Patterson to look at what the impact on the document
    would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050
    [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-832 - Look at what the impact on the
    document would be if we removed the definitions referred to in
    LC-2050 [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-09-09].

LC-2003

    Bryan: in considering language around "user-control" I'll wait until
    Jo responds to LC-2003 before elaborating on this

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to propose text against LC-2003 referring to the
    TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal
    operation [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-833 - Propose text against LC-2003
    referring to the TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a
    Proxy's internal operation [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-09].

LC-2034

    <hgerlach> what is left????

    jo: does anyone have particular views?
    ... what's left are OPTIONS and random extensions like WebDAV
    methods

    <SeanP> OPTIONS, CONNECT, TRACE, DELETE

    rob: we don't do anything to other methods

    <jo> ACTION: Rob to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
    scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Rob

    <jo> ACTION: Finean to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
    scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-834 - Draft a response to LC-2034 noting
    that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [on
    Robert Finean - due 2008-09-09].

AOB

    jo: I'll chat with Francois when he's back about dividing the
    comments up - because we've made good progress today but finishing
    will take a long time at this rate

    <hgerlach> OK, bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to review correspondence with Dennis cf LC-2065
    and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a proposed
    response to Dennis [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Finean to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
    scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
    [NEW] ACTION: HGerlach to detail his thoughts arising from
    discussion of LC-2025 [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to get back on LC-2043 and simialr pointing out
    what we are trying to achieve and asking for clarification [recorded
    in [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to propose text against LC-2003 referring to the
    TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal
    operation [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: Patterson to continue discussion of the title on the
    list [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Patterson to look at what the impact on the document
    would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050
    [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: Rob to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
    scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: SeanP to continue discussion of the title on the list
    [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version 1.133
     ([39]CVS log)
     $Date: 2008/09/02 15:11:17 $
      _________________________________________________________

      [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 15:18:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 September 2008 15:18:23 GMT