W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > July 2009

[minutes] Tuesday 7 July 2009 teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:25:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4A5368E7.9060609@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as text below.

Many issues closed during the call on the Mobile Web Application Best 
Practices document. Please refer to the minutes for the list of 
resolutions taken.


Francois.


-----
07 Jul 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jul/0010.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           DKA, adam, Francois, yeliz, miguel, SeanP, EdC, jo

    Regrets
           nacho, jeff, abel, brucel, achuter, tom, phila, chaals

    Chair
           DKA

    Scribe
           francois

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Administrativa
          2. [6]Use of media queries
          3. [7]ISSUE-262 - choices of presentation
          4. [8]ISSUE-263 - how to keep the screen alive?
          5. [9]ISSUE-264 - progressive enhancement
          6. [10]ISSUE-265 - Jonathan's submission
          7. [11]ISSUE-268 - Test cases to illustrate MWABP
          8. [12]ISSUE-279 - Provide timely disclosures
          9. [13]ISSUE 280 - User awareness and control
         10. [14]ISSUE-281 - capabilities disclosure in HTTP requests
         11. [15]ISSUE-287 - merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2
         12. [16]ISSUE-290 - desirable goal of MWABP statements
         13. [17]ISSUE-291 - widget best practices
         14. [18]CT - URI patterns
      * [19]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Administrativa

    DKA: do we still have a WG?

    ->
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2009Jul/0001.htm
    l FD's announcement of charter extension

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2009Jul/0001.html

    francois: charter extension approved until the end of the year!

    dka: happy to exist.
    ... question about calls during summer period. I'll be away end of
    July beginning of August.
    ... That does not necessarily entail we need to cancel the calls.

    <EdC> Should we poll people present?

    francois: Yes, I'll be away next two weeks.

    dka: I just want to avoid having a call scheduled and people end up
    waiting for other participants to join.

    <EdC> I have no plans to be absent in the coming 5 weeks.

    <jo> /me is away from July 29 to Aug 17

    dka: Francois, do you think you can set up a poll?

    francois: sure. One thing is that if Jo and Dan are both away, we
    should cancel the corresponding call(s). BPWG can't survive without
    chairs.

Use of media queries

    <DKA> ACTION-986?

    <trackbot> ACTION-986 -- François Daoust to enquires as to status of
    CSS Media Queries Rec -- due 2009-07-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/986

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/986

    ->
    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jul/0009.htm
    l Status of CSS media queries

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jul/0009.html

    dka: let's start with ACTION-986 on francois

    ACTION-986?

    <trackbot> ACTION-986 -- François Daoust to enquires as to status of
    CSS Media Queries Rec -- due 2009-07-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/986

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/986

    francois: the important point is that the CSS media queries spec is
    not blocked for lack of implementations.
    ... There are some in mobile browsers although not in all browsers,
    for sure.
    ... It really depends on what we want to put in the best practices.

    <EdC> Shouldn't the BP have a caveat regarding the implementation of
    various query elements, i.e. "device-width" vs. "color" or
    "orientation" ?

    dka: Some people wanted to remove all mentions to CSS media queries.
    I think it should be emphasized for mobile developers.

    adam: What is it that we want to specifically call out about CSS
    media queries?

    dka: I think it is particularly relevant to mobile developers,
    because it allows to use specific device capabilities.
    ... it's not particularly dynamic capabilities, but still a good
    thing to have.

    adam: OK. I think the possibilities are pretty limited for me as a
    developer, but I agree.

    dka: francois, do you think you can take an action to craft some
    text?

    <EdC> I suspect that device-width is generally supported in CSS
    media queries because of other elements such as viewport.

    francois: Sure. I think I agree with Adam that it's not that super
    useful. Some properties are not exactly supported, and the
    possibilities are not super wow.

    jo: I think it's actually not a best practice.
    ... If Dan can have the tons of developers he knows that consider
    use of CSS media queries as a best practice to explain how they use
    it.
    ... that would be great.

    EdC: CSS media queries are only useful in the context of viewports.

    dka: ok, why don't you give me an action to see how people use CSS
    media queries around here?
    ... and an action on Francois to craft some nominal text on CSS
    media queries.

    adam: I think francois should not spend time for the time being.
    Let's fine people who use it in practice.
    ... If you can find somebody who has some insight here, then that
    would be useful.

    dka: I'm happy to take an action.

    <scribe> ACTION: dan to find people who use CSS media queries to
    tell whether it's a BP [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-994 - Find people who use CSS media
    queries to tell whether it's a BP [on Daniel Appelquist - due
    2009-07-14].

    [25]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG

    francois: just to note that BPWG's home page actually uses CSS media
    queries to send different stylesheets depending on the incoming
    devices.

    dka: OK, that's one data point.

    adam: I still need to update a few links in the document.

    <EdC> Wasn't there a long-standing issue with canvases and svg?

    jo: I have some typos for you, adam. There's also quite a few open
    actions and issues against this document.
    ... We need to resolve them.

    adam: Yes. There's also some SVG/canvas issue opened on Jeff.

    dka: Is there anything that prevents us from resolving the issues?
    ... Let's try to enumerate them.

    jo: let me paste the URI to the opened issues and actions.

    <jo> [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14

ISSUE-262 - choices of presentation

    ISSUE-262?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-262 -- Discuss the option to offer choices of
    presentation as a best practices for mobile web apps -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/262

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/262

    dka: Is this something that we can close?

    <EdC> Isn't 262 handled somehow in the practice re: classes of
    devices?

    adam: can somebody summarize what it means?

    <DKA>
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
    D-mobile-bp2-20090619#d1e1515

      [28] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090619#d1e1515

    dka: the issue is whether the "Offer Users a Choice of Interfaces"
    is a best practice or not.

    adam: the Google's home page does this.

    dka: I don't think this is very controversial, actually.
    ... I suggest that we resolve it.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CLose issue-262 and keep section 3.6.5 in
    mwabp.

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <DKA> +1

    <adam> +1

    <miguel> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: CLose issue-262 and keep section 3.6.5 in mwabp.

    <yeliz> +1

    RESOLUTION: CLose issue-262 and keep section 3.6.5 in mwabp.

    close ISSUE-262

    <trackbot> ISSUE-262 Discuss the option to offer choices of
    presentation as a best practices for mobile web apps closed

ISSUE-263 - how to keep the screen alive?

    ISSUE-263?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-263 -- How to keep the screen alive (re null
    gestures) - what to recommend? -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/263

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/263

    dka: I suggest that we close it. We didn't go anywhere.

    adam: I think it would rather be a bad practice to keep the screen
    alive. I'd rather close this.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We close issue-263 and drop the idea of
    keeping the screen alive as a bp.

    <DKA> +1

    +1

    <adam> +1

    <EdC> 0

    <miguel> +1

    dka: Yes, this would be left to implementations.

    RESOLUTION: We close issue-263 and drop the idea of keeping the
    screen alive as a bp.

    close issue-263

    <trackbot> ISSUE-263 How to keep the screen alive (re null gestures)
    - what to recommend? closed

ISSUE-264 - progressive enhancement

    adam: I think this was done when I rewrote the section on the
    delivery context.
    ... So that's complete.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close Issue-264 as it has been completed.

    <adam> +1

    <adam> [30]http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/#bp-devcap-scripting (captures
    aspects of the original concept)

      [30] http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/#bp-devcap-scripting

    +1

    <DKA> +1

    RESOLUTION: Close Issue-264 as it has been completed.

    <EdC> 0

    close ISSUE-264

    <trackbot> ISSUE-264 How to rephrase progressive enhancement to make
    it fit as a BP? closed

ISSUE-265 - Jonathan's submission

    <DKA> ISSUE-265?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-265 -- Discussion of Jonathan's Submission ref
    separation of structure presentation and behavior at
    [31]http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhpvgnmn_54d7cbhrhn -- OPEN

      [31] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhpvgnmn_54d7cbhrhn

    <trackbot>
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/265

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/265

    adam: I had an action to respond to this.
    ... I should just complete my action and respond, I guess.

    dka: I think we should close the issue and leave you finish your
    action.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: close issue-265 and keep Adam's action
    open to write up a note to Jonathan why he does not think this makes
    it as a best practice.

    <adam> +1

    <DKA> +1

    +1

    RESOLUTION: close issue-265 and keep Adam's action open to write up
    a note to Jonathan why he does not think this makes it as a best
    practice

    close issue-265

    <trackbot> ISSUE-265 Discussion of Jonathan's Submission ref
    separation of structure presentation and behavior at
    [33]http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhpvgnmn_54d7cbhrhn closed

      [33] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhpvgnmn_54d7cbhrhn

ISSUE-268 - Test cases to illustrate MWABP

    <DKA> ISSUE-268?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-268 -- Test cases to illustrate mobile web
    application best practices -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/268

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/268

    <DKA> ACTION-721?

    <trackbot> ACTION-721 -- François Daoust to prepare a report's form
    to fill to test Aaron static/dynamic example -- due 2008-08-14 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/721

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/721

    francois: I miserably failed to complete my action here

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We abandon action-721 and issue-268 for
    this version of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices and defer
    it to v2.

    francois: I suggest we drop it. It was supposed to be the start of a
    complete testing framework.

    adam: It would not be trivial to do it.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We abandon action-721 and issue-268 for
    this version of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices.

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <DKA> +1

    <adam> +1 (I wish we had more bench-marking / testing but it would
    be a very big task).

    RESOLUTION: We abandon action-721 and issue-268 for this version of
    the Mobile Web Application Best Practices.

    close ACTION-721

    <trackbot> ACTION-721 Prepare a report's form to fill to test Aaron
    static/dynamic example closed

    close ISSUE-268

    <trackbot> ISSUE-268 Test cases to illustrate mobile web application
    best practices closed

    <DKA> ISSUE-279?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-279 -- 4.3.3 Provide Disclosures that are Timely
    and Accessible -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/279

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/279

    dka: [mumbling about mobileAppOK]

ISSUE-279 - Provide timely disclosures

    adam: I think this is done.

    <DKA> ACTION-861?

    <trackbot> ACTION-861 -- Bryan Sullivan to propose text ref
    ISSUE-279 -- due 2008-10-15 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/861

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/861

    dka: is the action completed?

    adam: yes, I think Bryan did that.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The text has moved on since the points in
    ISSUE-279 were made so we will close ISSUE-279 and ACTION-861.

    <EdC> So these are no longer relevant...

    <DKA> +1

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    RESOLUTION: The text has moved on since the points in ISSUE-279 were
    made so we will close ISSUE-279 and ACTION-861.

    close ISSUE-279

    <trackbot> ISSUE-279 4.3.3 Provide Disclosures that are Timely and
    Accessible closed

    close ACTION-861

    <trackbot> ACTION-861 Propose text ref ISSUE-279 closed

ISSUE 280 - User awareness and control

    <DKA> ISSUE-280?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-280 -- 3.3 User awareness and control -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/280

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/280

    adam: same here, it predates the discussion we had during last F2F.
    I think it can be safely closed.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The text has moved on since the points
    made in ISSUE-280 so we will close ISSUE-280.

    <DKA> +1

    <adam> +1

    <EdC> 0

    RESOLUTION: The text has moved on since the points made in ISSUE-280
    so we will close ISSUE-280.

    <DKA> ISSUE-281?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-281 -- MWA should disclose their capabilities in
    HTTP requests, to allow service adaptation -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/281

      [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/281

    close ISSUE-280

    <trackbot> ISSUE-280 3.3 User awareness and control closed

ISSUE-281 - capabilities disclosure in HTTP requests

    adam: It's been dormant for some time now.
    ... It's out of scope.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT ISSUE-281, this is out of scope for
    MWABP so we will close ISSUE-281 and take no action.

    <adam> +1

    adam: I'm for closing it

    <DKA> +1

    <EdC> +1

    RESOLUTION: WRT ISSUE-281, this is out of scope for MWABP so we will
    close ISSUE-281 and take no action.

    close ISSUE-281

    <trackbot> ISSUE-281 MWA should disclose their capabilities in HTTP
    requests, to allow service adaptation closed

ISSUE-287 - merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2

    <DKA> ISSUE-287?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-287 -- Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP --
    OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/287

      [40] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/287

    dka: does this still make sense?

    <EdC> no longer relevant => close it.

    adam: instead of merging, we replaced them with application data. So
    the topic's moot.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Issue-287 is moot so we will close
    issue-287.

    <EdC> +1

    <DKA> +1

    <adam> +1

    +1

    RESOLUTION: Issue-287 is moot so we will close issue-287.

    close ISSUE-287

    <trackbot> ISSUE-287 Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP closed

ISSUE-290 - desirable goal of MWABP statements

    <DKA> ISSUE-290?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-290 -- Desirable Goal of MWABP statements -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/290

      [41] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/290

    adam: Jonathan raised this during last F2F. We had no further
    discussion on this.
    ... I don't think desirable goals would add much value, they would
    just add text.

    dka: considering Johnathan is not here, should we give him some kind
    of deadline to come up with some text?

    adam: He did propose some document.

    <DKA>
    [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0132.htm
    l

      [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0132.html

    dka: I'm not so happy about so quickly abandoning this idea.
    ... What do you think, francois?

    francois: it's related to the icons we want to have, but don't
    really have for the time being, right?

    adam: It's close but not exactly the same. We should still keep the
    icons.

    dka: the desirable goals are more text we may want to add to each
    statement.
    ... It just seems like a bit of work.
    ... Within 3.4 for instance, we could include a bit more text about
    performance
    ... Why don't we leave it open and somebody send a message to
    Jonathan about ISSUE-290?

    francois: I'm unclear about the added value compared to the existing
    structure of the document. Consider the section on User-Experience,
    it's pretty clear the BPs are about improving the user experience.

    dka: It may be a way to flag a BP that sits in a section and that
    also has an impact on some other section.
    ... That would be kind of a low impact way to do what Jonathan is
    suggesting.

    adam: As a principal, I don't have any objection against this.
    ... Sections preambles already try to mention that. For instance the
    Conservative User of Resources and the section on User Experience

    <DKA> Adam should look through J.J.'s email and apply additional
    text as necessary to reflect the additional desireable goals as a
    note after each individual BP.

    <DKA> ACTION: Adam to look through J.J.'s email and apply additional
    text as necessary to reflect the additional desireable goals as a
    note after each individual BP. [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-995 - Look through J.J.'s email and apply
    additional text as necessary to reflect the additional desireable
    goals as a note after each individual BP. [on Adam Connors - due
    2009-07-14].

    dka: so we'll leave ISSUE-290 opened for the time being.
    ... with an attached action

ISSUE-291 - widget best practices

    <DKA> ISSUE-291?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-291 -- widget best practices -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/291

      [44] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/291

    dka: my view is that we should not do this.
    ... and that we should close the issue.
    ... Not because it's not important.

    <EdC> At least an explicit statement in the document about the
    non-inclusion of widgets?

    dka: But because there is not enough implementation experience in
    the wild to say things about that at this time.
    ... I talked with Art Barstow, chair of the Webapps WG about a
    Widget Best Practices document.
    ... We agreed that if it were to be done, the Web apps WG would be
    the correct place to do it.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will not add widget BPs to
    MWABP and will not work on a special widget BP doc at this time;
    close ISSUE-291.

    <adam> +1

    EdC: will you put a note that we exclude widgets from the document?

    <adam> [45]http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/#webapp-defined

      [45] http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/#webapp-defined

    adam: There's already some text in 1.3.2. I think it's fine as it
    stands.

    dka: I think we need to modify that text. Remove the words "being
    considered"
    ... Two different things. In one sense, the BPs are applicable to
    widgets, because it's just a package for a web app.
    ... But there's some specific stuff in widgets, such as
    localization.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will not add widget BPs to
    MWABP and will not work on a special widget BP doc at this time;
    close ISSUE-291. We will put an explicit statement in the doc
    stating that widgets-specifc BPs are out in scope because not enough
    implementation experience exists at time of writing.

    +1

    <EdC> +1

    <adam> +1

    <miguel> +1

    RESOLUTION: The group will not add widget BPs to MWABP and will not
    work on a special widget BP doc at this time; close ISSUE-291. We
    will put an explicit statement in the doc stating that
    widgets-specifc BPs are out in scope because not enough
    implementation experience exists at time of writing.

    <DKA> Also think you should change the reference to:
    [46]http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

      [46] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

    close ISSUE-291

    <trackbot> ISSUE-291 widget best practices closed

    dka: one open issue remaining on MWABP, that's good!

CT - URI patterns

    dka: Eduardo, you wanted to talk about that.

    <EdC>
    [47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0101.htm
    l

      [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0101.html

    EdC: this is Francois' response to my comment that explains why the
    note is correct, but is terse. The meaning is likely to be lost by
    readers.

    ->
    [48]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0108.htm
    l Eduardo's proposed clarification

      [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0108.html

    <EdC>
    [49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0108.htm
    l

      [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0108.html

    EdC: The sentence in the guidelines has all the semantics required,
    but is a bit unclear. So I suggest to add a clarifying sentence.

    dka: can we turn that into a proposed resolution?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The URI of the request plays no part in
    determining wehter request header values are modified and in
    particular,whether or not a urI PATTERN IS MENTIONED IN 4.2.9 IS NOT
    MATERIAL TO THIS JUDGEMNT

    <EdC> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: add the following sentence to the 2nd
    note of 4.1.5: "For the sake of clarity: a URI not matching those
    specified in 4.2.9 does not

    <EdC> imply that the corresponding site delivers content unsuitable
    for mobile devices."

    jo: I just wanted to avoid the double negative.
    ... I think it is better to say that the URI of the request plays no
    part here, that is basically what we're trying to say

    francois: agree with Jo. Double negative is usually unclear.

    <EdC> "The purpose of the note was to emphasize the opposite: the
    absence of a

    <EdC> mobile indication in a URI pattern does not mean that HTTP
    header field

    <EdC> values should be transformed."

    <DKA> +1 to Jo's resolution and giving the editor some leeway.

    jo: can you leave it to the editor to come up with some text on the
    basis that it will be easier to understand?

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid
    inserting too many negatives, not, not [recorded in
    [50]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-996 - Add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to
    avoid inserting too many negatives, not, not [on Jo Rabin - due
    2009-07-14].

    <DKA> -1 to tea.

    jo: Eduardo, do you agree?

    <jo> +1 to tea party

    EdC: shouldn't it rather be "and whether or not the URI pattern
    matches one of those defined in 4.2.9"?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The URI referred to inthe request plays no
    part in determining whether request header values are modified and
    in particular,whether or not a a URI ,matches the PATTERNs MENTIONED
    IN 4.2.9 IS NOT MATERIAL TO THIS JUDGEMNT

    <EdC> +1

    <DKA> +1

    RESOLUTION: The URI referred to in the request plays no part in
    determining whether request header values are modified and in
    particular,whether or not a a URI, matches the patterns mentioned in
    4.2.9 IS NOT MATERIAL TO THIS JUDGEMNT

    dka: That sounds like a lovely coda to our great call, today!
    ... Thanks everyone!

    <miguel> bye

    <yeliz> bye

    [Call adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Adam to look through J.J.'s email and apply additional
    text as necessary to reflect the additional desireable goals as a
    note after each individual BP. [recorded in
    [51]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: dan to find people who use CSS media queries to tell
    whether it's a BP [recorded in
    [52]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid
    inserting too many negatives, not, not [recorded in
    [53]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 15:26:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 July 2009 15:26:09 GMT