- From: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:48:32 +0000
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- CC: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Just to note that the third resolution today was not a duplicate of the second, but was: RESOLUTION: Under 4.1.5 Remove last sentence of first para, insert "(see 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields)" in first sentence after "header fields" of Ibid and insert " so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header field values" at the end of the first sentence of 4.1.5.5 That said, the new version of CT is at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100202 for review and for request for advancement to Last Call on next week's call. Jo On 02/02/2010 16:08, Francois Daoust wrote: > Hi, > > The minutes of today's call are available at: > http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-bpwg-minutes.html > > ... and copied as raw text below. > > Main topics discussed: > * Resolved on the guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies: > - Replace "must" with "would" in example under 4.1.5.5 > - In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in > 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a > Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies" > - In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in > 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a > Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies" > > * Jo is to issue an updated draft based on these resolutions, with a > view to resolving to publish it as a third last call working draft next > week. > > * Someone's needed to lead the work on the test suite for the Guidelines > for Web Content Transformation Proxies. > > Francois. > > > ----- > 02 Feb 2010 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Feb/0000.html > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-bpwg-irc > > Attendees > > Present > jo, francois, adam, EdC, DKA, Alan_Chuter, brucel, yeliz, > SeanP > > Regrets > tomhume, miguel, nacho, kai > > Chair > Jo > > Scribe > Dan > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]Mobile Web Application Best Practices > 2. [6]CT Guidelines > * [7]Summary of Action Items > _________________________________________________________ > > Mobiel Web Application Best Practices > > Francois: The spec is ready to ship. We need to organize a > transition call. > ... I prepared an implementation report template for MWABP. > ... Just waiting for the transition call to happen. > ... (on what is a transition call) it's an internal review by the > W3C Management to approve the transition of the specification to > Candidate Recommendation. > > Jo: (inaudible) > > Jo: The transition requires a formal review. > > EdC: Does that mean in principle the [transition] can be rejected? > > Francois: Yes - documented in the process document. > ... It doesn't happen often. We should be prepared to defend is the > review by the external world. > > <francois> [8]Process document > > [8] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports > > Francois: There is one potential change we might need to make. On > "how to implement the best practice: cache resources". > > <francois> [9]How to implement "cache resources" > > [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0013.html > > <francois> [10]Cache resources BP in MWABP > > [10] > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20100114#bp-conserve-fingerprint > > > Adam: I remember seeing the thread - I don't know what we use. I > think we use hashcode - that will change when the resource changes - > use the timestamp on the resource. Is there a standard hashing > algorithm? > > Jo: Someone did say that because the same resource may be served in > different forms that just using the timestamp may not be enough. > > <EdC> I believe there were actually _TWO_ issues in the comments: > (a) is the cache of just the HTTP header/transaction > meta-information or of the entire resource itself. (b) if the > latter, what is the recommended technical solution for a hash > mechanism? > > Adam: This is only to be seen by the local cache of any given > browser. Maybe "which version of the resource" and its timestamp > would be adaquate. > > Francois: If we plan to update the BP then we should do it right > now, before the transition call. > ... it's only in the "how to do it" section which is just an > example. > > Adam: We could add a bullet point to the description. > > Francois: It doesn't strike me as substantive so it can wait... We > can make it still in the future. > > Jo: let's note this and see if we get any more [similarly sized] > changes. > > EdC: 2 things - what the hash should be on and what technique to use > to make the hash. > > Adam: I think we can say that metadata is quite sufficient. We could > hold off adding that clarification until later. > > Jo: I think we just leave it for now and see if we get any other > points of clarification. > > CT Guidelines > > <francois> [11]CT guidelines version 1.x > > [11] > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125.html > > > Jo: ct guidelines 1x version published on monday last week. Francois > sent some comments (thanks!) > > <jo> [12]Francois's comments > > [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0023.html > > Jo: Francois? > ... If it makes your life easier then why don't we agree to take the > example out of normative language. > > <EdC> Just reply "header field must be added" in the example by > "header field is added" > > Francois: I don't mind having this normative duplication in there. > We understand it's not an additional guideline. > > <francois> [13]section 4.1.5.5 > > [13] > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-original-headers > > > <jo> [14]the offending example > > [14] > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125.html#sec-original-headers > > > <EdC> Just replace "header field must be added" in the example by > "header field is added", and all should be well... > > Jo: Change "must" for "would." > > Francois: Fine. > > Jo: (per EdC's suggestion) > > <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Replace "must" with "would" in example > under 4.1.5.5 > > <EdC> +1 > > +1 > > <francois> +1 > > RESOLUTION: Replace "must" with "would" in example under 4.1.5.5 > > <francois> [15]offending repetition > > [15] > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-additional-headers > > > Francois: Again - repetition for emphasis. > ... It looks weird in the conformance statement. > > <EdC> So you just want to eliminate the second bullet point in > 6.1.1, right? > > Jo: The only reason it's not 2 bullets is because of the additional > info on removing comments. > > <EdC> So you just want to eliminate the second bullet point in > 4.1.6, right? > > Jo: Don't want to eliminate the 2nd bullet.... > ... how about rewording the first part of 4.1.6.1 to get around this > inelegance. > > <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in > accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating > their presence and" with "Proxies" > > <francois> +1 > > +i dunno > > <yeliz> +1 > > <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance > with RFC 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance > with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their > presence and" with "Proxies" > > <EdC> Can we place the "in accordance with RFC2616" in 4.1.6, then? > > <jo> as above, EdC > > <EdC> +1 > > +1 > > <jeffs> +1 > > <francois> +1 > > RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC > 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC > 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" > with "Proxies" > > <yeliz> +1 > > <francois> [16]splitted guideline between 4.1.5 and 4.1.5.5 > > [16] > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-altering-header-values > > > Francois: if you read the first normative statement it must be > possible for the server to construct the original user agent - so > from an implementation perspective and a testing perspective you > cannot test one independently of the other. > ... We should try not to use the passive form and probably put these > 2 guidelines together. It's the same guideline using different > wording. > > <EdC> I agree with avoidance of passive form. Still thinking about > the other aspects... > > <jo> PROPSOED RESOLUTION: Under 4.1.5 Remove last sentence of first > para, insert "(see 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields)" in first > sentence after "header fields" and insert " so that it is possible > to reconstruct the original header field values" at the end of the > first sentence of 4.1.5.5 > > <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.1.5 Remove last sentence of first > para, insert "(see 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields)" in first > sentence after "header fields" of Ibid and insert " so that it is > possible to reconstruct the original header field values" at the end > of the first sentence of 4.1.5.5 > > <jeffs> +1 > > +1 > > <SeanP> +1 > > <francois> +1 > > <yeliz> +1 > > <jo> [17]Francois worries about Web site > > [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0025.html > > RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC > 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC > 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" > with "Proxies" > > <jo> A Web Site by any other name would be ... > > Francois: I don't want to start a discussion on what a website is. I > just wonder if we can define it for these purposes as a subset of > the same origin. > > Jo: I don't think it is necessarily though is it? > ... Something like www.example.com may have images at > images.example.com, right? > > (or scripts at script.example.com) > > audio dropped out for me... > > I'm back. > > Jo: hrm... > > Francois: if it's common that images get served from another domain > then forget about it... > > It is common. > > <EdC> Are such fine distinctions materially necessary to interpret > the guidelines? > > Francois: it's not going to be easy to write tests if you cannot > scope what a web site is. > > Dan: it has to do with scalability issues - why you sometimes server > up images off of different servers > > <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In re the matter of testing and Web sites, > include a note in the tests that where reference from a made from a > Web site to another domain this is not conclusive of anything > > (of course, this can more intelligently be done with Apache re-write > rules or intelligent http redirection head-ends these days) > > <jo> [hope that is vague enough for everyone] > > <SeanP> Here's an example: Images on yahoo.com come from l.yimg.com > and d.yimg.com > > <jo> that was what I was thinking of SeanP > > Francois: I'd prefer that we not touch the existing text? > > <EdC> I am puzzled. Isn't there some form of useful, formal, and > robust definition in a W3C glossary of some sort? > > Jo: Francois what can we do? > > Francois: Nothing - just forget about my comment. > > I suggest a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. > > Jo: You could say "anything that is an included resource for a web > page constitutes the same website" > > Francois: The point is not so much about included resources but > about links. > ... Honestly I don't think we could be more precise here. We could > say for links it's the same origin but for included resources it's > not necessary. > > Dan: So no action required? > > Francois: yes. > > <jo> Upshot is that Francois will take a pragmatic stance on this, > ref included resource and "same domain" for linked resources > > Francois: Might be a bit early now but: I kicked off the work on the > CT test suite. I have not included: I won't be able to take the lead > on that work. Someone needs to step up and take on the leadership. > > [collective heavy sigh] > > Jo: Any volunteers? > > <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Dan to take the lead on Tests, OK? > > <jo> +1 > > -1,000,000 > > Jo: let's take it off line. > > Francois: let's think about it - the work won't just magically be > done. > > Jo: [call closed] > > <brucel> hang loose, all > > Jo: Let's try to move that fwd to final lc next call. > > <SeanP> bye > > Summary of Action Items > > [End of minutes] > > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 16:49:11 UTC