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

[minutes] Seoul F2F Day 2 - Tuesday 4 March 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:35:34 +0100
Message-ID: <47CD17E6.2080302@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org

Here are the minutes for day 2 of Seoul's F2F:
http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html
... copied as text below.

Some more actions created. See the end of the email!

Many thanks to our hosts!

François.



04 Mar 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Chaals, RobF, SeanP, Francois, Bryan, Jo, Dan, Pontus,
           Martin, Sunghan, Soonho, Jonathan, Seungyun

    Regrets
    Chair
           Dan, Jo

    Scribe
           chaals, rob, SeanP, francois, Jo, Bryan

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda waffle
          2. [6]BP 2
          3. [7]BP2 5.5
          4. [8]5.5.3 - Push
          5. [9]BP2 5.5.4 minimise application size
          6. [10]BP2 5.5.5 Minimise external script files
          7. [11]next...
          8. [12]BP2 contribution from Sunghan
          9. [13]BP2 5.8.1 URI Schemes
         10. [14]BP2 inspiration from developer.apple.com iPhone tips
         11. [15]Jonathan's Contribution
         12. [16]Back to ADC
         13. [17]couple questions about BP2
         14. [18]mobileOK scheme
         15. [19]ISSUEs and ACTIONs
         16. [20]ACTION-529
         17. [21]ACTION-541 MobileOK Scheme
         18. [22]ACTION-606
         19. [23]ACTION-607
         20. [24]ACTION-614
         21. [25]ACTION-621
         22. [26]ACTION-631
         23. [27]ACTION-638
         24. [28]Open Actions
         25. [29]ACTION-530
         26. [30]ACTION-589
         27. [31]ACTION-594
         28. [32]ACTION-603
         29. [33]ACTION-605
         30. [34]ACTION-613
         31. [35]ACTION-618
         32. [36]ACTION-619
         33. [37]ACTION-621
         34. [38]ACTION-625
         35. [39]ACTION-629
         36. [40]ACTION-632
         37. [41]ACTION-633
         38. [42]ACTION-634
         39. [43]ACTION-637
         40. [44]ACTION-640
         41. [45]ACTION-657
         42. [46]ACTION-660
         43. [47]ACTION-663
         44. [48]ACTION-664
         45. [49]ACTION-665
         46. [50]ACTION-666
         47. [51]ACTION-667
         48. [52]ACTION-668
         49. [53]ACTION-670
         50. [54]ACTION-671
         51. [55]ACTION-672
         52. [56]ACTION-673
         53. [57]ACTION-674
         54. [58]ACTION-677
         55. [59]Issues
         56. [60]Issue-222?
         57. [61]Issue-222
         58. [62]Issue-223
      * [63]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Agenda waffle

    <DKA> [64]http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w&hl=en

      [64] http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w&hl=en

    <MartinJ>
    [65]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
    D-mobile-bp2-20080303

      [65] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080303

    DKA: There has been a bit of dribbling...

    We start on BP2...

    DKA: We need to spend some time on issues, actions and coffee

    JR: 2 1/5 hours on BP2?

BP 2

    BS: I was making changes as we were going yesterday. The major
    things not yet there are the ETRI input and the references to other
    "best Practice" documents.
    ... most changes are in section 5. I tried to use a low-tech way of
    saying things where possible. Some needs more wordsmithing, but
    would be good to go through and look at what was there.

    [Bryan shows the list of things that are indicative of what "Web
    Applications" are]

    <jo> [66]Changes to BP 2 since yesterday

      [66] 
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080303++&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080304

BP2 5.5

    BS: These things will need to be reflected back as requirements in
    the earlier section on objectives
    ... there are a bunch of things to do with efficient use of network.
    I already had a section on conserve network traffic.
    ... 5.5.2 has changed to be more general.

    JR: The notion of HTTP compression needs to be clarified
    ... HTTP says you can use gzip, so do...

    CMN: Gzip has a cost in terms of memory/processing, so we need to
    show this is valuable or raise an issue on it.

    JR: We want to say "use HTTP to note that you compressed (and how)"

    DKA: We may also want to acknowledge the work of EXI (efficient XML
    interchange). Without requiring the use of EXI (which is not
    supported) we should encurage its use.
    ... EXI has been designed to minimise cost of compression

    BS: I have explanatory text that explains the mechanisms, and that
    it needs to be balanced against resource usage etc.

    <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say we shouldn't say that until we
    have implementation proof

    CMN: EXI cannot be anything more than an informative reference if we
    don't have an implementation...

    JR: BS pointed out that tokenisation is an efficient approach to
    compression.

    BS: Or WBXML - widely used in WAP1.

    DKA: The thing behind WMLC?

    BS: Yes
    ... so do you compress at application level or transport level?

    DKA: Does that mean WBXML is supported by browsers that support WML?

    <scribe> ACTION: Chaals to check if Opera supports WBXML in and/or
    out of its WML support [recorded in
    [67]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-688 - Check if Opera supports WBXML in
    and/or out of its WML support [on Charles McCathieNevile - due
    2008-03-11].

    BS: We can reference EXI?

    JR: Non-normatively
    ... It is probably worth calling out application level and transport
    level compression.

    <DKA> [68]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-best-practices-20071219/

      [68] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-best-practices-20071219/

    BS: can we say "and other proprietary techniques"

    CMN: No, those are not relevant to the Web

    JR: We need to say "if the device supports it"

    CMN: We should be supporting widely-used and standard mechanisms -
    pro gzip because it is deployed and standard, EXI perhaps because we
    expect it to be good, not OBML because you haven't got a sec for it
    anyway...

    DKA: Agree. Think we can do that by ordering the way we talk abut
    these. When talking about XHR, do we need to make specific mention
    about compression for those types of transactions?

    CMN: XHR doesn't currently have a way of gzipping AFAIK, although
    there was a request to WebAPI at one point to build an API for this
    purpose.

    <jo> ACTION: Chaals to check XHR compression [recorded in
    [69]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-689 - Check XHR compression [on Charles
    McCathieNevile - due 2008-03-11].

    DKA: Isn't it possible to set this though XHR?

    CMN: Believe not - will check.

    BS: Will add a note clarifying that it may not always be possible to
    compress data.
    ... In the content, I added some stuff to clarify when it
    does/doesn't help to make transactions.

    JR: There is something that could be said about having regard to the
    type of connections available. Question is whether you can determine
    that

    DKA: That's something about access to the device context at
    application level. You can infer it, but you don't know yet.

    JR: There is probably something we can look at.

    BS: The objective in OMA is to create a set of properties including
    bearer awareness, that should be available through DCCI

    DKA: BP1 left the representation to the reader as an exercise. There
    are issues like cost of roaming that will continue - could be useful
    to suggest that you allow users to set the amount of access by some
    user-provided information

    JR: It's a nice idea. It was watered down in BP1 on the basis that
    it wasn't actually practised, ergo couldn't be a best practice.

    DKA: There is a preference in iPhone that says "don't use data when
    roaming". I wonder if we could give guidance to application
    developers to replicate that function?

    JR: Think we should try to put some pointer in.

    <jo> ack

    BS: The networks that are being used is information available to
    content providers, via cntext information that is knowable.
    ... e.g. we can figure out how fast the network is running and we
    forward that to the content provider

    JR: So it seems there is some information already...
    ... so there should be something that goes in there.

    BS: [reads some example text]

5.5.3 - Push

    BS: Push is widely deployed in networks. As a way to do event-based
    delivery instead of polling you could use it to minimise network
    traffic

    CMN: It's in WAP browsers

    BS: Almost every phone browser is a WAP browser, and they
    implemented push

    CMN: Push isn't in "Web" browsers - full internet as opposed to WAP
    browsers

    JR: There are two cases here... on the one hand WAP push and on the
    other hand application binding to incoming SMS to generate event
    based behavior

    BS: There is a problem of education. There is no generic way to bind
    SMS to an application, and that would be a proprietary
    implementation detail.

    JR: ..."if the device supports it".

    BS: The only standard method I know of is MIDP registry.

    JR: To my mind there is a distinction between WAP push and bindings
    on information pushed to an application. Maybe more information is
    needed...

    BS: We haven't said that MIDP-based browsers are not in scope...

    CMN: No. But I think it is clear that MIDP-based stuff is not
    readily within the scope of Web stuff - it is a particualr platform,
    in the same way that ActiveX relies ona aprticular platform, rather
    than being a general Web technology.

    JR: Think we need some more research to look at this... would
    someone like to take an Action?

    <jo> s/ona aprticular/on a particular/

    [pregnant silence]

    <jo> ACTION: JR to raise Issue as to availability of binding to
    incoming SMS from script [recorded in
    [70]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-690 - Raise Issue as to availability of
    binding to incoming SMS from script [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11].

    BS: Overall intention of this is to bring awareness to the
    differentiated delivery methods brought about by push technology. I
    think it is in our interest here to promote push technology however
    it is implemented - it does have a number of advantages.
    ... we can consider other possible approaches.

BP2 5.5.4 minimise application size

    BS: Added a bunch of text here

    JR: Need to avoid repeating BP1. I was dubious about Adam's point
    about nested selectors, overuse of generic class and so on.
    ... In respectof the technique Adam suggested, how widely recognised
    is it?
    ... it is a disaster for maintainability if your content changes
    shape, and requires support for CSS 2...

    MJ: About half of Volantis code is about optimising CSS - we
    consider it implemented best practice.

    JR: Curious about how you deal with changes to structure and the
    impacton CSS

    MJ: We do some analysis, but we are essentially generating the CSS
    anyway. The benefits tend to outweigh the costs.
    ... but I do take the point.

    JR: Seems that some element of the benefit needs to be balanced
    against the cost of maintainability.
    ... As long as you are at th top of the class structure, things are
    fine.

    DKA: Sounds like we ought to include "something"...

    JR: Yes, we seem to be coming to recommend this, but with caveats.

    BS: Should optimisation be done during delivery as opposed to
    up-front? It seems that reduces the cost....

    JR: Yes, I think that is a good technique to use.

    BS: There is also the use of markup, rather than script

    CMN: Think that this si a seperate BP about not playing with the DOM
    more than necessary

    JR: This is a specific technique for CSS, and something about
    dynamic changes to HTML. Leet's split these out

    RF: Didn't Aron have a counter-case?

    CMN: I think there is an edge-case (table processing?) that needs to
    be noted in a caveat

BP2 5.5.5 Minimise external script files

    BS: Seemed to relate to both network impact and overall size.
    ... impactis data use and service latency

    JR: Should be balanced against the possibility of caching script
    files across pages.

    MJ: There is a danger reading the text taht people decide to put the
    script files into page content, destroying the ability to cache the
    scripts

    BS: Caching diminishes the ovrhead problem this is trying to deal
    with, right?

    CMN: Don't we have this in BP 1?

    JR: We did this in reference to CSS.

    DKA: I think we are going to run up against a lot of things where we
    are elaborating BP1. I think that's fine.

    CMN: So we should put specific pointers back to things we are
    elaborating from BP1.

    JR: We need to discuss terminology. "main page" is not terminology
    consistent with BP1.
    ... Where we refer to resources, etc.

    BS: I have been trying to use common language.

    JR: There is a decision to be made. Consistency with our existing
    teminology has value.

    DKA: It is important to get the terminology right. We produced a
    document that was too hard to read, and we should be looking to do
    better.
    ... We really need to keep the target audiencein mind, and not
    maintain terminology from BP1 as sacred.

    JR: If we have back references this needs to be clarified

    <Zakim> DKA, you wanted to make a note about readibility

    BS: In using the terminology like application, pulling focus away
    from presentation in a page as the model, we are inherently
    expecting the developer to stretch their though. As long as we
    explain up front what we mean, developers should understand and we
    should be able to use langauge as straightforward as possible.

    JR: think we need to raise an issue on terminology.

    <jo> ACTION: Dan to raise issue and start discussion on main page,
    external resources and so on [recorded in
    [71]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-691 - Raise issue and start discussion
    on main page, external resources and so on [on Daniel Appelquist -
    due 2008-03-11].

    CMN: agree with Dan that clearer language is better than consistency
    with BP1. But we should point back to the ideas that are the same,
    and bring that out.

    FD: Think it would be good to have more examples - bits of code that
    developers can look at.

    JR: Now, rub some more salt in...
    ... That was what the techniques wiki was meant to do. It is a great
    idea, but you need the samples first

    DKA: We thought building a Wiki would mean we would get the code. We
    could take a strctured approach and action people more directly.

    JR: All a great idea. Show me the content.
    ... Should cross-reference BP1 WHITE_SPACE

next...

    BS: Slotted stuff that could go into various boxes into presentation

    DKA: We should make time in the agenda to look at the stuff from
    Jonathan.

    [BREAK]

    <rob> scribe: rob

    <JonathanJ>
    [72]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.htm
    l

      [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html

    <scribe> scribenick: rob

BP2 contribution from Sunghan

    Sunghan: about user-device interaction and experience
    ... IP access from any other devices, as well as Web

    <francois> [73]Sunghan input

      [73] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Feb/0105.html

    Sunghan: eg using PC to send message to web that's received and
    replied to by a phone
    ... "seamless" means service mobility between different networks

    Dan: how can we take this input and distill it into statements of
    Best Practice?
    ... ie techniques to ensure seamless access to content?

    Bryan: BP1 recognised thematic consistency
    ... already contains "multi-screen" environment.

    <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to note that it raises one web as part of
    scope

    Bryan: but switching between them is perhaps new

    Chaals: missing from current scope is "kind of things in BP2 scope
    are things that will work on the web" [as well as on the mobile]

    Jo: to get into BP2 need "do this... don't do that..." statements
    ... do you mean "make your content work in all contexts" or "design
    your content with all user interfaces in mind but don't ignore focus
    of content in different environments"?

    Sunghan: I've scoped the problem, not proposed the solution
    techniques
    ... ie users will use PCs and mobiles together - not one or the
    other

    Jo: MWI steering council is asking why a seperate mobile apps WG?
    shouldn't we talk about how different interfaces work together?

    <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to note that something this implies is
    "allow people to identify themselves as being on different devices"

    Jo: so this is a good hint to address how users make use of
    different interfaces co-operatively

    Chaals: allow users to identify themselves as the same person on
    different devices?
    ... eg identity on Opera mini on a phone = Opera on a PC

    Bryan: user with services on desktop PC and mobile is commonplace
    ... a BP is that these views should synchronise in as timely a
    manner as possible

    Dan: "thematic consistency" became an improtant BP1 principle
    ... maybe this can be a guiding principle for BP2?

    Jo: so can we turn it into actionable statements?
    ... highlighting BP1's "3.1 One Web" statement
    ... hints relationship betweem mobile-desktop-other screens

    Sunghan: this BP1 paragraph highlights mobile-desktop relationship.
    BP2 could go further and consider more user interfaces.

    Jo: need to constrain ourselves to mobile, eg we're not inventing
    new sync techniques
    ... can we action Sunghan to develop some actionable statements?

    Bryan: eg "these views should synchronise in as timely a manner as
    possible..."

    <jo> ACTION: seunyung to provide some example BP statements based on
    the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [recorded in
    [74]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - seunyung

    Jo: Dan & I will ask in UWA WG as well

    <jo> ACTION: seunyun to provide some example BP statements based on
    the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [recorded in
    [75]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - seunyun

    <francois> ACTION: sunghan to provide some example BP statements
    based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [recorded in
    [76]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-692 - Provide some example BP
    statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [on
    Sunghan Kim - due 2008-03-11].

    <Seungyun> Sunghan is not on the IRC

    Dan: did we finish the discussion on URI protocol schemes yesterday?

    <jo> ACTION: Dan to raise issue with Dave Raggett in UWA and see if
    they will take forward from where we leave off [recorded in
    [77]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-693 - Raise issue with Dave Raggett in
    UWA and see if they will take forward from where we leave off [on
    Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-03-11].

    Bryan: yes, WRT tel: scheme BP2 doc is where we'll pick up now...

    Jo: thanks Sunghan for the contribution

BP2 5.8.1 URI Schemes

    Bryan: actionable statements like "include the phone number as text
    in the link so you know who you're about to call"

    Dan: and "use tel: or wtai: URI scheme as an easy way to make phone
    calls"

    Jo: my view is a 2-step process: (1) write it in our language and
    then (2) express it in content-provider language
    ... so rather see it as a high-level statement for now

    Dan: surely we can narrow it down right now?

    Bryan: maybe I went too far to specific actionable statements in
    this edit
    ... perhaps a generic statement plus some specific examples (eg
    phone calls, send a message, ...)

    <Zakim> DKA, you wanted to suggest "actionable information" as a
    replacement for "things"

    <chaals> ["Use links like mailto:, tel: etc to help users perform
    relevant actions"]

    <jo> "Remember that hyperlinks can be used to initiate device
    specific actions"

    <chaals> ["Use link types like... "]

    Dan: suggest "actionable information" as a replacement for "things"
    - we're not talking about hyperlinks that go somewhere else but
    about links that pop-up some additional action

    Bryan: I'll propose some text to tweak

    <chaals> ["Use link types like mailto:, tel: etc to help users
    perform relevant actions"]

    Jo: sould go back to doc review now

    Dan: are Jose's inputs incorporated?

    Bryan: yes

BP2 inspiration from developer.apple.com iPhone tips

    Jo: ok, remember ideas are not copyright but the text is.

    <francois> [78]Apple iPhone resources and tools for developing web
    apps

      [78] http://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/designingcontent.html

    Dan: advice about the viewport and aspect ratio is useful

    Bryan: does Apple have IPR on this?

    Chaals: we're not sure

    Jo: caution is advisable but Apple's guidelines are public advice,
    there's no license to sign
    ... would prefer not to have to go to Apple for permission to
    publish BP2

    Dan: advice about touch-screen might be useful

    Rob: eg consider people will often use their thumbs, so "mouse"
    pointing isn't accurate

    Dan: how about "think windowless"?

    Bryan: BP2 has a bullet list of presentation and interaction issues
    that captures a lot of this

    <JonathanJ> I think iphone's "windowsless" is good idea.

    Bryan: we can expand that list with stuff from here

    Jo: can we get more general or do we need specific actionalble
    techniques?
    ... if Bryan's already got the bullet list we'll continue on that
    line and see how it goes

    Bryan: video encoding for bearer is relevant

    Dan: and preparing alternatives in advance suitable for different
    bearers

    Jo: caveat that you might not know about bearer

    <jo> [break for lunch]

    <JonathanJ> my contribution :
    [79]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.htm
    l

      [79] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html

    <SeanP> scribe: SeanP

    <scribe> scribenick: SeanP

    DKA: Spend a couple more minutes examining Apple doc.

    Jo: Need to look at Jonathan's contribution.

    <jo> ACTION: Dan to review apple document and summarise the parts
    that might be applicable to BP2 [recorded in
    [80]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-694 - Review apple document and
    summarise the parts that might be applicable to BP2 [on Daniel
    Appelquist - due 2008-03-11].

Jonathan's Contribution

    <jo> [81]Jonathan's Doc

      [81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html

    <JonathanJ> please open attatched file :
    [82]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/att-0003
    /mwi-200803-DDC-v1.0.doc

      [82] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/att-0003/mwi-200803-DDC-v1.0.doc

    Jonathan: Proposal for ADC for BP2.
    ... DDC is minimal delivery context for Mobile Web.
    ... [Goes through DDC requirements]
    ... K-DDC is delivery context for K-MWBP.
    ... MW2F K-Mobile OK is similar to W3C Mobile OK.
    ... [Explains diagram that compares W3C and MW2F in the document]
    ... We are developing K Mobile Best Practices 1.5

    <scribe> ...New advanced delivery context in Korea is KDDC 1.5

    <scribe> ...New features were needed for KDDC

    UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: [Describes table comparing DDC and KDDC 1.5]
    ... Some of the new features: HTML 4.01, EUC-KR, PNG, 50K max page
    size, CSS 2.1, JavaScript 3, XHR, SSL, DOM stuff

    DKA: We said before that we didn't want an ADC; doesn't mean that
    this isn't useful. Still need to have an ADC in mind when creating
    the new BPs.
    ... Reason we said we didn't want an ADC is we didn't want to open
    ourselves up to criticism since it will become obsolete.

    Rob: Is this DDC 1.5 finished?

    Jonathan: is finished

    Rob: BPWG can nod to one that already exists.

    Jo: We have had a problem with the perception of the DDC. We could
    have the same criticism of the ADC.
    ... Point of DDC is the minimum delivery context for reasonable
    experience on the Web...Designed to avoid criticism.
    ... Omission of PNG was a mistake.
    ... If you know nothing else about the device, assume the DDC.
    ... BP1 also says exploit device characteristics.
    ... BP2 will explain how to exploit device capabilities.
    ... Each one of the BP2's will say if this feature exists, exploit
    it in this way.
    ... DDC is not about a point in time, etc. BP2 doesn't need that
    idea because you need to find out what the device is to exploit the
    capabilities.
    ... What dependencies does the K BP1.5 have on the ADC?

    DKA: What is in K BP 1.5 that goes beyond the BP 1.0 that we could
    put in BP2 that would be based on the ADC?
    ... Are there BPs related to CSS 2 or JavaScript 3?

    Jonathan: We need more advanced features.

    <JonathanJ> Seungyun

    Jo: The assumption of BP2 is that you know what the device is.
    ... You should have a way of find out what the capabilities of the
    device are.
    ...Ex: for the tel: URI we will find out whether the device supports
    it before using it.
    ... Wasn't an easy decision to drop ADC, but once it was done it
    made sense.

    Bryan: There is nothing in the DDC that says that HTTPS is not
    supported.
    ... We have a DC context variability section in BP2.

    Seungyun: Is there any relationship between DDC and BP2?
    ... Won't have ADC in future?
    ... What kind of DDC in BP2?

    Jo: We haven't got consensus yet about whether we should update the
    DDC for BP 2.0.
    ... Personal view is that we shouldn't update it.
    ...Exception: PNG could be added.

    DKA: I don't think that BP2 is written in the context of the DDC. It
    is all about knowing device capabilities.
    ... Do you have statements in the K BP 1.5 written in support of,
    say, XHR?
    ... Is there something we can pull out of that doc and put into BP2?

    <jo> ACTION: Jonathan to extract BP statements from K MWBP 1.5
    document for consideration in BP 2.0 [recorded in
    [83]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-695 - Extract BP statements from K MWBP
    1.5 document for consideration in BP 2.0 [on Jonathan Jeon - due
    2008-03-11].

    <MartinJ> Agenda:
    [84]http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w

      [84] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w

    <JonathanJ> Helsinki file :
    [85]http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/pervila/Gradu/index.html

      [85] http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/pervila/Gradu/index.html

    DKA: Anyone want to present University of Helsinki Master's Thesis
    and Frost Ajax library?

    Francois: Will summarize.
    ... Would be interesting in having the guy who wrote it summarize it
    to the group.

    <DKA> [86]http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/pervila/Gradu/index.html

      [86] http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/pervila/Gradu/index.html

    <jo> ACTION: Daoust to summarise the U Helsinki masters thesis on
    Mobile Ajax performance with a view to including some aspects into
    BP 2 [recorded in
    [87]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-696 - Summarise the U Helsinki masters
    thesis on Mobile Ajax performance with a view to including some
    aspects into BP 2 [on François Daoust - due 2008-03-11].

    <DKA> [88]http://www.pavingways.com/frost-ajax-library

      [88] http://www.pavingways.com/frost-ajax-library

    DKA: Frost Ajax library is for constrained browsers. Javascript and
    server side component that sends appropriate JS based on the type of
    the device.
    ... Would be interesting in seeing if we could promote that idea.
    ... Developer has been active creating comments although not a group
    member.

    Bryan: Is there a summary report on this activity?

    DKA: Someone needs to summarize what can be pulled from this library
    for use by BP2?
    ... This pattern of using server side device detection combined with
    a modular JS library...need to determine if this could be a useful
    technique in BP2.

    <JonathanJ> Summarize article:
    [89]http://ajaxian.com/archives/measuring-the-state-of-mobile-ajax-p
    erformance

      [89] 
http://ajaxian.com/archives/measuring-the-state-of-mobile-ajax-performance

    Bryan: They have some detailed information that has been put into
    WURFL and they use that to select JS?

    Martin: ... We use a similar technique to determine which JS to send
    to the device.

    Bryan: Does this use a test to find out the JS capabilities?

    DKA: No, just uses the type of the device.

    Jo: Runs an automated test on the browser.
    ... It's run once; don't need to do it every time.

    DKA: Sounds even more relevant--we could document what those tests
    are. We could say use this script to find the characteristics.

    Chaals: This is a very simple test. It does 3 tests. Not sure how
    much time it is worth looking at this.

    <chaals> [whee! Opera Mini passes all its tests :) ]

    Jo: Agree with Chaals. We should have something about level of
    support and simple tests. Need to capture that it is a best practice
    to do this.

    Bryan: We already have a placeholder for this. Have a section on JS
    reflection.

    Jo: The second point is to customize the download of the JS based on
    the device.

    DKA: I think there is still an action here.

    <jo> ACTION: Dan to summarize the points he can glean from
    examination of the frost library [recorded in
    [90]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action12]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-697 - Summarize the points he can glean
    from examination of the frost library [on Daniel Appelquist - due
    2008-03-11].

    <DKA> Agenda updated:
    [91]http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w&hl=en

      [91] http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w&hl=en

    <francois> Scribe: francois

    <scribe> ScribeNick: francois

Back to ADC

    Jo: agenda is to talk about mobileOK, but before that, I'd like to
    come back to Jonathan's input on ADC
    ... The thing is we need to update DDC for BP2
    ... for instance, support for PNG may be assumed
    ... The suggestion is BP2 contains a revised version of DDC and
    reviewed BPs of BP1

    Bryan: The presence of DDC without saying that it does not limit the
    best practices of BP2 might lead to confusion

    Jo: Yes, we need to be clear that it's the minimal delivery context,
    not the target but the baseline
    ... If you know nothing about the target, then assume (revised) DDC
    ... Other than PNG, I don't really think DDC needs changing
    ... I'll raise an issue on that

    <jo> ACTION: JR to raise issue of revising DDC and to raise
    discussion of the revised definition being retroactive to BP1
    [recorded in
    [92]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action13]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-698 - Raise issue of revising DDC and
    to raise discussion of the revised definition being retroactive to
    BP1 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11].

    Jo: In the light of discussion, it occurred to me that there is a
    set of properties that you need to rely on when reading and writing
    the BP2 doc
    ... I think it's useful to list these DDR properties

    <jo> ACTION: Bryan to insert an Appendix listing the Device
    properties that BP2 is dependent upon [recorded in
    [93]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action14]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-699 - Insert an Appendix listing the
    Device properties that BP2 is dependent upon [on Bryan Sullivan -
    due 2008-03-11].

    Jo: Also, I think it's clear we don't need an ADC, but what would be
    great is to have a list of tiers/classes
    ... so that when you develop an application, you may target these
    different classes
    ... It seems that this is established practice. I've heard people
    saying "I have 4-5 classes"

    DKA: yes, I'm interested to see where that goes

    Jo: I'm hoping that having a best practice around specification in
    that way addresses concern from persons such as Jonathan

    Bryan: to summarize, you would recommend to have a BP to recommend
    classification, but not list the definition of the classes, right?

    Jo: yes

    <jo> ACTION: Bryan to introduce a BP on classification of devices
    into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an
    extended non-normative example, pethaps [recorded in
    [94]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action15]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-700 - Introduce a BP on classification
    of devices into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with
    an extended non-normative example, pethaps [on Bryan Sullivan - due
    2008-03-11].

couple questions about BP2

    Bryan: I don't have yet any inputs on:

    1. toolkit developers may use

    scribe: we'll have to address the impact of toolkits

    2. how are we going to address the techniques and practices for
    non-browser applications

    Jo: I don't think we need to talk about the execution environment
    ... the environment is not especially relevant to mention

mobileOK scheme

    Jo: who knows what it is?

    Audience: [smiles]

    Bryan: There will be a public value to know that a site is mobileOK,
    and so we should find a way to mark pages as presumably mobileOK

    Dan: mobileOK Scheme is the name we gave to a set of documents, and
    encompasses mobileOK, tests, the checker

    Jo: plus it's a set of usage rules
    ... we have failed, as a group, to make a start on the doc
    ... We really have to do something for this in my view.
    ... What does the teams think?
    ... Do we need a mobileOK scheme document?
    ... Do we need another doc that says how to use mobileOK, which icon
    to use, when to use it, ...?

    Dan: Yes, we need it, otherwise mobileOK won't be used in public

    chaals: Does it need to be a TR doc though?

    Dan: no, it doesn't.

    Seungyun: from a Korean's perspective, we really need that scheme.
    ... We hope W3C will address that doc

    Jo: the basic problem is we don't have an editor for the doc.
    ... and so without editor, no doc.
    ... resolution to find an editor for the doc!

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Chaals to edit mobileOK scheme document

    <jo> +1

    +1

    <DKA> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <Seungyun> +1

    <jo> RESOLUTION: Chaals to edit mobileOK scheme document

    Jo: I think we should cover a basic content list here and let you
    work on this.

    chaals: I believe there is a working draft

    <chaals> [95]source for inspiration

      [95] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobileOK-20060712/

    Jo: If I remember correctly, this is the pre-split version
    ... what can we extract from this?

    chaals: what is mobileOK
    ... how does mobileOK relate to best practices?

    Jo: where do I find license info
    ... it also needs to discuss the checker
    ... there needs to be some fairly tight wording in here
    ... it needs to discuss that the checker is non normative although
    it is a ref implementation
    ... it should answer the trustmark question
    ... dom has an on-going action to check with legal team

    Dan: I think there should be a kind of usage scenario for content
    providers for instance

    chaals: yes. How does mobileOK relate to me?

    Jo: right. What are the benefits.

    <jo> ACTION: Dan to write a usage scenario for mobileOK scheme
    [recorded in
    [96]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action16]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-701 - Write a usage scenario for
    mobileOK scheme [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-03-11].

    Jo: when do you think you can have a first editor's draft?

    chaals: [thinking hard]. Not tonight. Not tomorrow.

    Jo: by next Thursday?

    chaals: OK

    <jo> ACTION: chaals to produce first editors draft of mobileOK
    scheme in 1 week [recorded in
    [97]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action17]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-702 - Produce first editors draft of
    mobileOK scheme in 1 week [on Charles McCathieNevile - due
    2008-03-11].

    Dan: is there another issue that we should take on upon which is
    about mobileOK Pro and mobileOK Basic
    ... whether or not mobileOK is synonym to mobileOK Basic

    chaals: I would say over my dead body. But that is too easy to
    arrange
    ... I think it would be a shame
    ... I'm not sure it's worth discussing. It will be associated with
    whatever people use most.

    Jo: Are mobileOK usage rules packed with scheme?

    chaals: the scheme should document them, but I don't think it's up
    to me to write them

    Jo: what I think is worth discussing: we have a fundamental decision
    to make as to whether it's going to be meaningful as a trustmark or
    just a wishful label

    chaals: the HTML label is slightly more reliable than the WCAG
    label, which is just a joke in the sense that there is no way to
    check conformance automatically
    ... in the last century, W3C had a system where you could report
    abuse of trustmarks
    ... It stops to be a trustmark, and starts to be a badge that you
    may wear anywhere
    ... Two possibilities: W3C sets precise rules and tries to enforce
    the use of the trustmark
    ... or not
    ... These are considered issues beyond the scope of the working
    group
    ... We should basically say: this is what we're thinking, these are
    some ways to ensure the trustmark is used correctly, and have
    copyright rules to ensure that it has to be removed when rules are
    not followed

    Bryan: Trust is something that is based somehow on intent, and there
    needs to be some recognition of the good will.
    ... It's never going to be 100% followed
    ... we need to be more flexible

    <Zakim> DKA, you wanted to ask about usage rules for K-MobileOK.

    Dan: I would like to ask Jonathan or Seungyun what usage rules were
    developed with K-MobileOK
    ... do you have a set of rules as to when people can claim they are
    mobileOK?

    Seungyun: so far, we don't have specific rules for K-mobileOK
    ... because we're waiting for W3C!
    ... We need some explicit rules from W3C in order to deploy that in
    Korea. We only have some requirements for the moment.

    Dan: It sounds to me that there is an aspiration for a mobileOK
    button.

    Jo: I really like this idea. We might even resolve on that.
    ... One of the things that I think is important: mobileOK means "you
    want to be mobile friendly" as Bryan crystalized correctly before

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There will be an aspirational level
    represented by a badge of mobileOK called "mobileOK Checked" that
    links to validator/mobile with default URI of referringpage

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There will be an aspirational badge for
    mobileOK called "mobileOK Checked" that links to validator/mobile
    with default URI of referring page

    <rob> +1

    <DKA> +1

    <jo> RESOLUTION: There will be an aspirational badge for mobileOK
    called "mobileOK Checked" that links to validator/mobile with
    default URI of referring page

    <JonathanJ> this is a mobileok test page in Korea :
    [98]http://test.mobileok.or.kr/

      [98] http://test.mobileok.or.kr/

    Jo: next point is the distinction between the claim of the trustmark
    and the use of the visual representation
    ... previous discussion said that the label was the claim
    ... and the visual representation is just informal
    ... from a technical point of view, it's important. From the
    appelquistian simple point of view, it's too complex

    chaals: we should accept the fact that putting the badge is actually
    claiming that you are mobileOK.
    ... I would suggest that we can do is that when you have a badge,
    then you have to link it to a POWDER claim.
    ... so if I get to the badge and cannot find the POWDER claim, then
    you're breaking the rules.

    Jo: Again, back to the point about the fact that the visual
    representation may appear on content that is not mobileOK because of
    thematic consistency

    francois: too complex?

    chaals: if you want to claim something is mobileOK, then you need to
    have a POWDER claim
    ... if you put a badge in your page, you need to link it to the
    POWDER claim
    ... should the badge link directly to the POWDER doc? Quite possibly
    not, because that's not really useful from a browser's point of
    view.
    ... so maybe it's linking to a page that contains a link to the
    POWDER statement.
    ... If you serve 400000 pages adapted to delivery contexts that are
    not DDC and not mobileOK but deliver mobileOK pages to DDC, there's
    no reason why you can't add the mobileOK badge to all of your pages.

    <DKA> Scribe: Jo

    <DKA> ScribeNick: Jo

ISSUEs and ACTIONs

    <DKA> [99]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open

      [99] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open

    <DKA>
    [100]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/pendingrevi
    ew

     [100] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/pendingreview

ACTION-529

    jo: Ed said leave pending

ACTION-541 MobileOK Scheme

    jo: suggest reassign to chaals

    [reassigned to chaals]

ACTION-606

    close ACTION-606

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-606 Detail reload re: section 2.1.5 original
    representation availability closed

ACTION-607

    close ACTION-607

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-607 Detail what he means by "reload" request on
    mailing list closed

ACTION-614

    jo: on me, leave pending

ACTION-621

    ACTION-621?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-621 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to check if
    W3C has a liaison with OpenAjax -- due 2008-01-24 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [101]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/621

     [101] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/621

ACTION-631

    ACTION-631?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-631 -- François Daoust to check with Dom about
    test cases for ISSUE-234 -- due 2008-01-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot-ng>
    [102]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/631

     [102] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/631

    close ACTION-631

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-631 Check with Dom about test cases for
    ISSUE-234 closed

ACTION-638

    ACTION-638?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-638 -- Kai Scheppe to raise an issue on ISSUE:
    Does the TF need to create device which emulates the DDC for
    testing? -- due 2008-02-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot-ng>
    [103]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/638

     [103] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/638

Open Actions

ACTION-530

    [leave open]

ACTION-589

    ACTION-589?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-589 -- Daniel Appelquist to look for one or
    more likely candidates to adopt techniques and make arrangements ref
    copyright and attribution -- due 2007-11-12 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [104]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/589

     [104] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/589

    jo: have mailed offering dotMobi to take this over as part of
    dev.mobi, no response from Dom as yet

    close ACTION-589

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-589 Look for one or more likely candidates to
    adopt techniques and make arrangements ref copyright and attribution
    closed

    [DKA opens ISSUE-239]

ACTION-594

    ACTION-594?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-594 -- Daniel Appelquist to coordinate mobileOK
    Basic advancement, probably starting with a teleconf -- due
    2007-12-21 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [105]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/594

     [105] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/594

    close ACTION-594

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-594 Coordinate mobileOK Basic advancement,
    probably starting with a teleconf closed

ACTION-603

    ACTION-603?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-603 -- François Daoust to find out how to
    liaise with HTTP NG work -- due 2008-01-29 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [106]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/603

     [106] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/603

    fd: if we really need to add something to HTTP we will try to do
    that but that's not the way they want to go, their scope is
    rewriting not creating new stuff
    ... if anything, we need new stuff

    Close ACTION-603

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-603 Find out how to liaise with HTTP NG work
    closed

ACTION-605

    ACTION-605?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-605 -- Magnus Lönnroth to suggest some text for
    2.1.2 -- due 2007-12-11 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [107]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/605

     [107] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/605

    ACTION-605?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-605 -- Magnus Lönnroth to suggest some text for
    2.1.2 -- due 2007-12-11 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [108]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/605

     [108] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/605

    close ACTION-605

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-605 Suggest some text for 2.1.2 closed

ACTION-613

    ACTION-613?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-613 -- Jo Rabin to start collecting mobileOK
    web pages for mobileOK CR -- due 2008-01-10 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [109]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/613

     [109] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/613

    jo: ongoing

ACTION-618

    ACTION-618?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-618 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to review Scope of
    BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 -- due 2008-01-17 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [110]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/618

     [110] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/618

    [leave open]

ACTION-619

    ACTION-619?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-619 -- Alan Chuter to update the comments list
    to public-bpwg-comments -- due 2008-01-24 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [111]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/619

     [111] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/619

    dka: did this happen?

    fd: yes

    close ACTION-619

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-619 Update the comments list to
    public-bpwg-comments closed

ACTION-621

    ACTION-621?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-621 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to check if
    W3C has a liaison with OpenAjax -- due 2008-01-24 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [112]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/621

     [112] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/621

    Dka: ?

    fd: ?

    [leave open]

ACTION-625

    ACTION-625?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-625 -- François Daoust to initiate discuss on
    the exception wording ref dangerous content -- due 2008-01-29 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [113]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/625

     [113] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/625

    [still open]

ACTION-629

    ACTION-629?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-629 -- Ignacio Marin to will ask group about
    having it the week before the Expo starts -- due 2008-01-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [114]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/629

     [114] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/629

    close ACTION-629

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-629 Will ask group about having it the week
    before the Expo starts closed

ACTION-632

    ACTION-632?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-632 -- Bryan Sullivan to propose some
    recommendation on user-agent detection from a proxy and browser's
    (format) point of view -- due 2008-02-05 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [115]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/632

     [115] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/632

    BS: still open

ACTION-633

    ACTION-633?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-633 -- Andrew Swainston to write a clear draft
    on @@allow-https-rewrite and the need for the end-user to be aware
    of the situation -- due 2008-02-05 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [116]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/633

     [116] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/633

    [change to pending review]

ACTION-634

    ACTION-634?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-634 -- François Daoust to write a note to say
    something about Cache-Control: no-transform and WAP gateways -- due
    2008-02-05 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [117]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/634

     [117] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/634

    [change to pending review]

ACTION-637

    ACTION-637?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-637 -- Alan Chuter to check on which WCAG 1.0
    checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. -- due
    2008-02-12 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [118]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/637

     [118] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/637

    [no response from Alan]

ACTION-640

    ACTION-640?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-640 -- Phil Archer to draft test suite document
    to complement Test Document - such a draft may or may not be
    completed depending on its usefulness in the Test Document creation
    process -- due 2008-02-12 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [119]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/640

     [119] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/640

    [skipping Pro Test docs as we don't know

ACTION-657

    close ACTION-657

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-657 Post a questionnaire re June f2f by Feb.21
    closed

ACTION-660

    ACTION-660?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-660 -- Bryan Sullivan to raise specific points
    of discussion on Public List -- due 2008-02-21 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [120]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/660

     [120] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/660

    close ACTION-660

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-660 Raise specific points of discussion on
    Public List closed

ACTION-663

    ACTION-663?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-663 -- François Daoust to set up a poll for
    BPWG due in one hour -- due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [121]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/663

     [121] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/663

    close ACTION-663

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-663 Set up a poll for BPWG due in one hour
    closed

ACTION-664

    ACTION-664?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-664 -- Yeliz Yesilada to provide some examples
    to put into the document - specifically on STYLE_SHEET_SUPPORT --
    due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [122]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/664

     [122] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/664

    <scribe> [pending review]

ACTION-665

    ACTION-665?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what
    support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [123]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

     [123] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

    [leave open]

ACTION-666

    ACTION-666?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-666 -- Aaron Kemp to draft section 2.6 listing
    user control options that SHOULD be supported -- due 2008-03-04 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [124]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/666

     [124] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/666

    [change to pending review]

ACTION-667

    close ACTION-667

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-667 Make 2.7 and 2.8 sub sections of 2.6 closed

ACTION-668

    close ACTION-668

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-668 Raise an ISSUE on labelling using POWDER
    describing transformation options on sites closed

ACTION-670

    close ACTION-670

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-670 Remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to
    the present 3.2 closed

ACTION-671

    close ACTION-671

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-671 Update wording of sect 3.2 p 2 to clarify
    that the intent is not to respond with a transformed copy closed

ACTION-672

    close ACTION-672

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-672 Adjust text in 3,2 per the previous note in
    the minutes closed

ACTION-673

    ACTION-673?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-673 -- Aaron Kemp to see if he can get some
    figures that scope the problem of bogus 200 responses -- due
    2008-03-04 -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [125]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/673

     [125] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/673

    [leave open]

ACTION-674

    close ACTION-674

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-674 Produce new draft based on the many actions
    he has taken during this call :-) before BP meeting on THursday
    closed

ACTION-677

    ACTION-677

    ACTION-677?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-677 -- Daniel Appelquist to create an issue to
    start bringing together potential test cases. -- due 2008-03-06 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [126]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/677

     [126] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/677

    [leave open]

Issues

    <DKA> Scribe: Bryan

    <DKA> Scribenick: Bryan

Issue-222?

Issue-222

    Issue-222?

    <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-222 -- TAG Finding on Alternative
    Representations -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [127]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/222

     [127] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/222

    Jo: this is talking about alternative representations; there is a
    can of worms to be opened here. The suggestions shown are
    interesting and we can adopt them as BPs, but
    ... the problem is that no one does this, except for some specific
    examples.
    ... as an initial step we can make recommendations, e.g. based upon
    proposed texton the list from last year.

    <JonathanJ>
    [128]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/open

     [128] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/open

    Jo: i.e. since there are so many optional representations, using
    distinct URI schemes seems impractical.
    ... other points were made in the email, e.g. re 2.1.1 point 5 in
    the TAG finding, the reason it is problematic is while it talks
    about HTML, we are interested in more than HTML, e.g.
    ... Images and links for them.
    ... re redirection, we are averse to redirection but may consider
    the 300 response as a way to do it, e.g. as discussed in RFC
    2295/2296.
    ... redirection is generally to be avoided since mobile sites don't
    have static versions of their resources.
    ... re point E, its hard to know whether a URI points to a specific
    representation or a resource with multiple representations. The
    linkages that are suggested require that there be a way to
    distinguish this.
    ... CT TF needs to consider resources linked as described here.
    Google has mentioned this as a recommended practice.
    ... The question is what do we expect from TAG in response to our
    note.

    Dan: they could help us solve the problem.

    Jo: they may ask us what is our answer instead

    Dan: we already have some answers in the CT guidelines doc

    Jo: we have enough to do already without invoking a discussion with
    TAG that might not bear fruit.

    Dan: if we issue a document that contradicts we will get comments

    Francois: Jo's points are valid, and we should give them to the TAG.
    ... initial feeling is that we are both wrong, content adaptation in
    the future will not be solved by HTTP links for alternate
    representations
    ... the negotiation will be more complex than supported by the link
    approach

    Jo: from our likely recommendation that POWDER be used to describe
    resources, we need a link header for that purpose, and the meta
    information there would be helpful for CT

    Francois: they could say that the web page returned (the ML) will
    address the appropriate links to available representations

    Jo: will draft a note around these 5 points for review and to
    initiate a dialog with TAG
    ... will do this in the next couple of weeks

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to draft a communication with the TAG based on
    ISSUE-222 [recorded in
    [129]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action18]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-703 - Draft a communication with the
    TAG based on ISSUE-222 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11].

Issue-223

    Issue-223?

    <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-223 -- Various Items to Consider for the CT
    Guidelines -- OPEN

    <trackbot-ng>
    [130]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/223

     [130] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/223

    Jo: for the shopping list, we may be able to avoid the issue through
    the indirect intentions being expressed through T&C's, that the CP's
    intent should be respected, but
    ... since our job is to promote mobile web awareness, we should
    assume that CP's intend to provide the mobile representation. But
    the user may express a preference for the desktop
    ... version by using a user-agent switcher or via other means.

    Dan: since you can't do all desktop things on the mobile site, a
    user may want to use the deskop for those missing things

    Jo: although we never said it, we implied that its a good idea to
    match the user's context but they should allow a return to desktop
    view since they may have misunderstood the context.
    ... So we should say that CP's should provide a desktop view, and
    give the choice to the user.
    ... user's preferences may normally be overridden because the CP
    knows better, but the user can effect an higher priority override
    when desired
    ... we need also to put a placeholder in BP2 that CP's should make
    assumptions but should allow users to override the assumptions

    Francois: Aaron's contribution goes in that direction, e.g. user
    priority should be given

    Sean: in other areas there are some precedents, e.g. CSS, where the
    CP stylesheet normally overrides the user, but the user can
    ultimately overrride the CP

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In matters of presentation, Content
    Providers' preference should take preference over user's preference,
    but user should be able to exert a high-priority override over the
    content provider's prefernece if desired.

    Jo: that is a good example, and we could reference it

    <francois> +1

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in
    matters of presentation, Content Providers' preference should take
    preference over user's preference, but user should be able to exert
    a high-priority override over the content provider's prefernece if
    desired.

    <SeanP> +1

    <rob> +1

    +1

    <jo> +1

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in matters
    of presentation, the Content Provider's preference should take
    preference over user's preference, but user should be able to exert
    a high-priority override over the content provider's prefernece if
    desired.

    Jo: on point 2, how should the user signal their choices, they
    can't. A new HTTP header is required, or an application artifact
    needs to be created.
    ... the question is thus out of scope since it's new technology

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: the
    question of how the user signals their choice is out of scope.

    Bryan: so we can also add a statement that the user should be given
    an option at the application layer, a link to switch modes

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: the question
    of how the user signals their choice is out of scope as a signaling
    question, but in scope as an application or user interaction
    question and we recommend that both CT Proxies and origin servers
    provide user interactions to effect this.

    Jo: re issue 3, this is done, we have resolved that they should
    present original headers
    ... on point 4, this is all out of scope, as an area for product
    differentiation
    ... on point 5, we have a workable compromise but need to express it
    clearly

    Francois: this links back to the "dangerous" question

    Jo: the answer is multipart; first, user choice if only thru T&C's;
    there may also be apparently malformed content that is required,
    e.g. for non-browsers.

    Dan: is the question here that we need two shades of transform
    control

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: lksakllkasd

    Jo: that is addressed through the inclusion of a POWDER declaration
    identifying the intent

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in
    the matter of overriding no-transform... a. it's a user choice
    (which may be delegated to a service provider) b. with appropriate
    CT detection of non-browsers apparantly malformed content will be
    left alone.

    +1

    <jo> +1

    <DKA> +1

    <francois> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <MartinJ> +1

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in the
    matter of overriding no-transform... a. it's a user choice (which
    may be delegated to a service provider) b. with appropriate CT
    detection of non-browsers apparantly malformed content will be left
    alone.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in
    the matter of overriding "no-transform but tidy allowed"... we're
    waiting for POWDER.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in
    the matter of overriding "no-transform but tidy allowed"... the
    content provider preferences will be expressed via POWDER.

    <jo> +1

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in the
    matter of overriding "no-transform but tidy allowed"... the content
    provider preferences will be expressed via POWDER.

    Jo: re point 6, BPWG says content should be tested, but this can't
    be claimed without testing via CT proxies. Even with test houses, it
    would be helpful to provide a more realizable means for CP's to
    comply.
    ... the facilities should be provided by proxy operators.

    Chaals: Opera Mini provides an onine tool to verify how something
    will work thru Opera Mini.

    Jo: suggests Operators of CT proxies should provide test facilities.

    Bryan: and not CT product providers?

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Operators of content transforming proxies
    should provide test facilities for the benefit of content providers.

    Dan: the proxies are setup per the business rules of the CT proxy
    operator.

    Martin: believes this makes sense in some cases, for customized
    products it may not be practical for CP's to test thru all CT proxy
    operators.

    Chaals: unconvinced that this has a place in the CT spec

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document:
    Operators of content transforming proxies should provide test
    facilities for the benefit of content providers.

    Jo: we can't say that you must test without giving a means or
    directions how to do it

    <jo> +1

    <francois> +1

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: Operators of
    content transforming proxies should provide test facilities for the
    benefit of content providers.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the group expresses its thanks to the
    hosts of this f2f, ETRI and the Mobile Web 2.0 Forum

    <MartinJ> +1

    <rob> +1

    <jo> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: the group expresses its thanks to the hosts of
    this f2f, ETRI and the Mobile Web 2.0 Forum

    <Seungyun> suggestion : let's take a picture together !!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to insert an Appendix listing the Device
    properties that BP2 is dependent upon [recorded in
    [131]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action14]
    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to introduce a BP on classification of devices
    into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an
    extended non-normative example, pethaps [recorded in
    [132]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action15]
    [NEW] ACTION: Chaals to check if Opera supports WBXML in and/or out
    of its WML support [recorded in
    [133]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Chaals to check XHR compression [recorded in
    [134]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: chaals to produce first editors draft of mobileOK
    scheme in 1 week [recorded in
    [135]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action17]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dan to raise issue and start discussion on main page,
    external resources and so on [recorded in
    [136]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dan to raise issue with Dave Raggett in UWA and see if
    they will take forward from where we leave off [recorded in
    [137]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dan to review apple document and summarise the parts
    that might be applicable to BP2 [recorded in
    [138]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dan to summarize the points he can glean from
    examination of the frost library [recorded in
    [139]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action12]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dan to write a usage scenario for mobileOK scheme
    [recorded in
    [140]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action16]
    [NEW] ACTION: Daoust to summarise the U Helsinki masters thesis on
    Mobile Ajax performance with a view to including some aspects into
    BP 2 [recorded in
    [141]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to draft a communication with the TAG based on
    ISSUE-222 [recorded in
    [142]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action18]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to extract BP statements from K MWBP 1.5
    document for consideration in BP 2.0 [recorded in
    [143]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to raise Issue as to availability of binding to
    incoming SMS from script [recorded in
    [144]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to raise issue of revising DDC and to raise
    discussion of the revised definition being retroactive to BP1
    [recorded in
    [145]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action13]
    [NEW] ACTION: seunyun to provide some example BP statements based on
    the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [recorded in
    [146]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: seunyung to provide some example BP statements based
    on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [recorded in
    [147]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: sunghan to provide some example BP statements based on
    the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [recorded in
    [148]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 09:36:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 March 2008 09:36:29 GMT