- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:17:44 +0100
- To: <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Please find the minutes of this meeting at [1] and as text below.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html
Huge thanks, once again, to Tom Hume for his meticulous scribing.
Jo
---
Summary:
MWABP:
RESOLUTION: Multipart is not broadly enough supported to be a mobile best practice - so do not reference it
Sprites: Contact Stephanie Rieger to get more details cf her email to list
Adam will draft something on offline techniques, and mention Appcache
Adam will mention splitting up of Javascript files for large apps
BP 1.5:
Editorial Call Tomorrow
MobileOK Scheme:
Phil is asking Rigo to update the license per comments,
All asked to review most recent draft with a view to a resolution next week.
CT 1r
Jo to update the Absract based on EdC's contribution
Chaals will submit tests for the conformance document around XSS and Cookies in respect of ANY link rewriting
The wording around HTTPS link rewriting remains NOT RECOMMENDED
We need to complete the Last Call comments on the previous last call, then pending any comments on the latest draft in the course of this week take a RESOLUTION next week to go to Last Call again.
ISSUEs and ACTIONs Bashing
We closed a number of ACTIONs (though Trackbot died so their status will not have changed yet)
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Adam to follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref her
comments and what the actual benefits are % terms [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Adam to write a small BP on offline techniques citing
AppCache as an example (and the outome of AtomDB as appropriate)
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Chaals to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to
group [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of
the document [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Phila to ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise
mobileOK license accordingly [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
-----------------------
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
09 Jun 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0016.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
DKA, tomhume, +03531522aaaa, chaals, +0207881aabb, brucel,
adam, Phil_Archer, miguel, yeliz, +41.31.972.aacc, achuter,
EdC, jo, +1.630.414.aadd, SeanP, manrique
Regrets
Francois, Abel, Kai, Nacho
Chair
Jo
Scribe
tomhume
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]1. Welcome
2. [6]2. Update on MWABP (BP 2)
3. [7]Discussion on Sprites for decoration only, thread
starting at
4. [8]3. Update on BP 1.5
5. [9]3bis: MobileOK scheme
6. [10]4. CT Draft 1r
7. [11]AOB and ISSUE and ACTION bashing
8. [12]ACTIONS
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 09 June 2009
<brucel> hi
<jo> scribe: tomhume
<jo> [14]Agenda
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0016.html
1. Welcome
jo: welcome to John, and welcome back to Phil Archer
phil: waves
jo: phil was co-editor of the initial mobile web document
phil: here mainly in my role as W3C team member, responsible for
providing training around BPs
2. Update on MWABP (BP 2)
adam: we've had a smallish amount of feedback, I have a long list of
TODOs and haven't gotten around to updating the doc yet
... we need to conclude on CSS spriting and multipart
... and possibly something around a BP on AppCache, which is
HTML5-specific - or at least technologies which involve
... not downloading an entire JS package when starting an app. Not
sure how to make a BP out of it.
<jo> ACTION-961?
<trackbot> ACTION-961 -- Tom Hume to investiagate multipart-mixed in
the context of 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of MWABP -- due 2009-05-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/961
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/961
jo: starting with multipart...
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to agree
tomhume: did some research, doesn't appear broadly supported but
generally agreed to be a good sort of thing
jo: so shall we resolve as not suitable for a BP?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Multipart is not boradly enough supported
to be a mobile best practice
chaals: say nothing, or explicitly reject it?
jo: say nothing I think.
chaals: agree
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Multipart is not broadly enough supported
to be a mobile best practice - so do not reference it
<jo> +1
+!
+1
<adam> +1
<yeliz> +1
<DKA> +1
RESOLUTION: Multipart is not broadly enough supported to be a mobile
best practice - so do not reference it
adam: as a footnote... as part of Eduardo's discussion re spriting:
it's broadly supported in a subset of mid/high-end subset devices.
I'd say keep it in as they are. Is there support in the group for
that?
<jo> [16]Discussion on CSS Spriting
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0032.html
Discussion on Sprites for decoration only, thread starting at
edC: the point is, spriting is supported but does it bring the
benefit that it's supposed to bring?
jo: what do we need to do to determine this one way or another?
<jo> [17]Eduardo's Point on Spriting
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0019.html
edC: entice Stephanie (Rieger) to provide figures wrt latency with
and without sprites
adam: shall I take an action to follow up on this thread and follow
up with her?
jo: yup
<jo> ACTION: Adam to follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref her
comments and what the actual benefits are % terms [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-965 - Follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref
her comments and what the actual benefits are % terms [on Adam
Connors - due 2009-06-16].
adam: I've had some feedback, mainly internal, that AppCache is v v
valuable to web applications (partic. mobile gmail). It feels odd to
remain silent on it, although it is HTML5-specific - so a BP might
generate complaints. But what do we think?
dka: strongly agree that it's important, but is it too early to talk
about it? My view is that it's in the same bucket as some of the
stuff in the web apps working group - I would like to see something
come out which details how to use AppCache and other offline-web-app
techniques, but it seems separate from this document.
<jo> ACTION-064?
<trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Rittwik Jana to submit a text for section
6.2.5 on user preferences -- due 2005-09-27 -- CLOSED
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/64
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/64
<jo> ACTION-964?
<trackbot> ACTION-964 -- Tom Hume to review AtomDB for potential
inclusion/reference in MWABP -- due 2009-06-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964
jo: is there something in general to say about using offline where
available?
dka: yes, giving an example of appcache - though maybe not telling
people to use it
jo: adam, can you do a small BP around emerging offline techniques?
<EdC> The tenor of the comments seems that appcache, atomdb, etc.
are examples of offline application management. The BP should then
be general.
tomhume: will have atomdb looked at by next week
<jo> ACTION: Adam to write a small BP on offline techniques citing
AppCache as an example (and the outome of AtomDB as appropriate)
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-966 - Write a small BP on offline
techniques citing AppCache as an example (and the outome of AtomDB
as appropriate) [on Adam Connors - due 2009-06-16].
adam: I fwded some feedback to the member list earlier today, re
large complex web apps on mid to high-end browsers... one limitation
on fast startup is JS parse time. We have a BP around minimising
latency, but the partitioning of large scripts might be more
important according to some feedback we had.
... I don't feel we need to go into technical details re how to
partition, but it is valid feedback - if you're about to write a web
app and do it well, follow all BPs, you'll hit problems around parse
time and JS. Splitting it up is the only way to build a good
scalable web app. Given this should we pull it out into a BP?
jo: why pull it into a separate BP if we've nothing specific to say
about it?
adam: to make it more prominent?
jo: a BP without anything actionable is a problem
adam: happy to leave as is right now, wanted to flag it as feedback
I had...
jo: maybe insert a note to call out this point and say it's been
discussed?
adam: feedback next week would be helpful...
3. Update on BP 1.5
jo: there was an editorial meeting to update some of it. I had
actions to make further comments in the doc. Phil has stepped
forward to act as an ongoing editor of the doc. Status now is that
I've finished making comments to the google doc, we have an editors
meeting tomorrow morning (open to anyone in the group)...
<jo> [22]Current work in progress on BP 1.5
[22] http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&hl=en
phil: led into a false sense of security here, schmoozed and seduced
by appelquist :) There's a bit more to do than I thought. Want to
get it to the point where the group can take a look without a need
for further protracted discussion - if it's contentious, it comes
out, if it can be smoothed over, it stays in. Should put it to bed
in the next 2-3 weeks.
3bis: MobileOK scheme
<PhilA>
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/
20090609
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090609
<PhilA>
[24]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/
20090610
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090610
<jo> -> Jo's comments on MobileOK Scheme and the license
<jo> [25]Jo's comments on mobileOK Scheme and the License
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0021.html
phil: changes hats. I'm involved with MobileOK scheme thanks to my
work with the POWDER protocol. When talking about POWDER I take off
my W3C hat. This doc bears my Greek affiliation. We've been through
it, the license is the issue...
jo: with phils changes and Rigo making basic changes and
clarifications to the license, we're done on it.
... we do need a correct copy of the license, despite the need for
speed
... Can the group review it, make any comments this week, and we'll
take a resolution next week.
edC: can you remind everyone what the main issues pending last time
were on mobileOK?
jo: phil wanted to clarify the status on PNG
phil: we were implying that you should have a PNG format trustmark,
just after we recommended not having unnecessary icons on the
screen...
jo: anything else on mobileOK scheme?
... we can't take a resolution until we have a corrected final
license. But we can action francois to ping Rigo.
<jo> ACTION: Phila to ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise
mobileOK license accordingly [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-967 - Ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments
and revise mobileOK license accordingly [on Phil Archer - due
2009-06-16].
4. CT Draft 1r
<jo> [27]CT Draft 1r note from Jo
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0015.html
<jo> ACTION-929?
<trackbot> ACTION-929 -- Eduardo Casais to write an abstract for CT.
-- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/929
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/929
jo: first point is eduardo's action 929
<jo> [29]Jo's comments on EdC's Proposal
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0018.html
jo: eduardo was asked to put together an abstract.I agree with his
points but think rewording would be of benefit. Are you happy with
my rewording?
edC: Yes
jo: it's now a bit lengthy, but calls out some important points.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt text as proposed by EdC and amended
by Jo for the Acbstract (cf ACTION-929)
<jo> +1
<EdC> +1
<achuter> +1
<DKA> +1
RESOLUTION: Adopt text as proposed by EdC and amended by Jo for the
Acbstract (cf ACTION-929)
<yeliz> +1
jo: next point is much more contentious, francois' action-925
<jo> ACTION-925?
<trackbot> ACTION-925 -- François Daoust to ascertain the
availability of tests that ensure that same origin policy
conformance, when implemented in this way, can be tested -- due
2009-04-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/925
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/925
jo: would rather do this with francois here, but let's talk about it
now anyway, I doubt we'll resolve it in one go
... francois has determined that there are no existing conformance
tests we can reference to show that same-origin niceties are
observed by a transforming proxy when rewriting links
... The resolution we took was that in the absence of such tests we
couldn't condone link-rewriting at all, never mind https.
... So if we stick to the previous resolution, we rewrite the doc to
say "link rewriting is not acceptable", meaning all kinds of CT
proxies cannot be conformant.
<DKA> -1 to that
chaals: i've been chatted to some of our security and testing guys.
we think we could make a test for this. we possibly have one
already, i couldn't find it...
... I've just found one!
... around cross-site scripting
jo: and cookies?
chaals: yep. The cookie thing is a consequence, right?
jo: we wouldn't want passwords in cookies sent to the wrong site
chaals: the security risk is cross-site scripting. with that you can
get cookies out, or whatever.
... I'll find a test.
jo: is this new technology or old technology?
... Any objections to adopting this normatively, should it pass all
the tests we expect it to?
chaals: Luca does.
jo: he's not a member of this group, but we'll take his view into
account.
edC: I'd immediately put an action to someone on what the status of
taking over tests from external parties is. Who will maintain these
tests, etc?
jo: interesting point. if charles submits it to a group in
contribution, there's no IP impediment to the group in using it.
... on maintenance, isn't this in the normal run of maintenance of
the document? I'm not sure it's a different question.
chaals: the group has to agree this test is valid first of all.
Subsequent to them agreeing, the group can go ahead and use it.
jo: what does anyone feel about us verifying the test is adequate?
edC: how do we do this?
... what do developers and contributors to it claim that it covers?
chaals: The one I'm looking at right now covers the ability to do a
cross-site request.
jo: irrespective of this, how do we verify cookies are not sent
between sites they shouldn't be sent between?
... given that you're using transcoder.mobi and a browser will think
all cookies are for transcoder.mobi and not hte origin site, how do
we ensure transcoder.mobi intercepts cookies correctly?
chaals: that's not the test I have right now, but I'll find out
jo: anyone else got comments?
... for link rewriting, we can put chaals' tests into the
conformance requirements, if we agree with them, and we can move
ahead.
<DKA> +1 to this proposal.
<SeanP> Seems reasonable to me.
<jo> ACTION: Chaals to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to
group [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with
the details of what happened.
<trackbot> Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with
the details of what happened.
<jo> [from F2F and now at 4.2.9.3 of the CT doc:]
<jo> Interception of HTTPS and the circumstances in which it might
be permissible is not a "mobile" question, as such, but is highly
pertinent to this document. The BPWG is aware that interception of
HTTPS happens in many networks today. Interception of HTTPS is
inherently problematic and may be unsafe. THe BPWG would like to
refer to protocol based "two party consent" mechanisms, but such...
<jo> ...mechanisms do not exist at the time of writing of this
document.
<jo> The practice of intercepting HTTPS links is strongly NOT
RECOMMENDED.
jo: next point is around https rewriting. we resolved this at the
F2F to say (see above)
... it turns out RFC2119 doesn't contain the term "NOT RECOMMENDED"
so we'll need to rewrite it
... the doc goes on to say what you must do if, nonetheless, you
rewrite links.
<jo> [32]HTTPS Link Rewriting
[32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#sec-https-link-rewriting
<jo> qck t
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to wonder what NOT RECOMMENDED becomes
jo: NOT RECOMMENDED would become SHOULD NOT
<chaals> [would be "should not" as Jo says]
seanP: rfc2119 contains "NOT RECOMMENDED" as a synonym for SHOULD
NOT
... so no need to change.
phil: copying and pasting stuff can trip you up...
jo: so action is to add this to the keywords section of the document
<jo> ACTION: Jo to add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of the
document [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-968 - Add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119
section of the document [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-16].
jo: if there's no further comment on this (and bearing in mind other
comments from the list) let's move on
... can people kindly review that document, only been out 2 days.
I'd like to propose a resolution for next week that we take it to
last call a second time.
... it has a couple of dangling ends but not many. one of them is
francois recreating the conformance statement, we also need to
formally respond to the previous last call before we do a new one,
but that's a technicality.
... comments?
AOB and ISSUE and ACTION bashing
jo: anyone?
<francois> [I haven't seen the explicit list of new X-Device-<foo>
HTTP headers in the doc, is it normal?]
<jo> [yes, francois, I think I inserted text, per the resolution]
<jo> [wel,, I *hope* so anyway]
ACTIONS
<jo> [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open
[34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open
<francois> [ok, I'll have a closer look and will follow up on the
mailing-list if needed]
<jo> ACTION-694?
dka: this one was overtaken by events. I think this one needs
closing.
<jo> close ACTION-694
<trackbot> Getting info on ACTION-694 failed - alert sysreq of a
possible bug
<jo> ACTION-783?
adam: suspect this is obsolete. i think we talked about web 2.0
technologies and decided the term was naff, but have long ago
replaced it.
<jo> close ACTION-783
<jo> ACTION-783?
dka: ACTION-787 not done. Still relevant, needs to be done. I'll do
it.
<jo> ACTION-787?
dka: did this, it didn't result in anything useful. i think it needs
closing.
<jo> ACTION-788?
<jo> Close ACTION-788
adam: suspect ACTION-794 relates to MVC for web apps
jo: we'll leave ACTION-794 open
... ACTION-796 on dan
<brucel> have a meeting - bye
dka: not yet complete. hasn't been the right time to do it.
jo: we'll leave 796 open
<jo> Close ACTION-820
jo: suggest we close 820 in jeffs absence, because it's reaching a
conclusion anyway. alan, yeliz?
... hear no objection
<yeliz> no objection
<jo> ACTION-855?
jo: action-870
<jo> ACTION-870?
dka: not done. keep it open.
jo: action-873 on dan
dka: same as the other one.
<jo> Close ACTION-877
jo: 877 is francois' but I think we can close it, done.
... 892 is on conformance, francois did this but it's pending
review.
<jo> [35]Alan's list
[35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0081.html
<jo> ACTION-894?
jo: 894 is on adam.
adam: I reviewed this OOB. It's about accessibility.
... probably still relevant.
<jo> brucel ... still on call?
<jo> ACTION-898
jo: 905 on dan.
dka: not done, leave it open.
jo: 906 on adam.
adam: I think those BPs have changed. I think this is done, it
refers to the BPs as they were in a previous draft
jo: let's close it then.
<jo> Close ACTION-906
<jo> Close ACTION-909
yeliz: i think 909 can be closed
jo: 913 we can close?
<jo> Close ACTION-913
<chaals> [Bruce claims to have completed action 898, btw]
<DKA> um...
jo: 918... dan?
<brucel> sorry all, had to dash out
jo: 919, adam?
adam: done and resolved.
<jo> CLOSE ACTION-919
<brucel> there was an action on me, Chaals pinged to say
jo: 920 on dan...
dan: got bryan here now. this is related to mwabp? tempted to close
it.
<jo> Close ACTION-920
<jo> Close ACTION-921
<jo> Close ACTION-923
<jo> Close ACTION-929
<jo> Close ACTION-952
<jo> Close ACTION-953
<jo> Close ACTION-954
<jo> Close ACTION-961
<jo> Close ACTION-963
<jo> Close ACTION-965
jo: aob?
<yeliz> bye
<jsmanrique> bye
<miguel> bye
bye all
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Adam to follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref her
comments and what the actual benefits are % terms [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Adam to write a small BP on offline techniques citing
AppCache as an example (and the outome of AtomDB as appropriate)
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Chaals to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to
group [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of
the document [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Phila to ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise
mobileOK license accordingly [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.135
([42]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/06/09 14:57:01 $
_________________________________________________________
[41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 15:18:19 UTC