RE: [agenda] CT call Tuesday 15 April 2008

I'm not sure if I sent my regrets for this afternoon, apologies if this is a duplicate. I'm unlikely to make the call.

V.Pleased to see the publication announcement!

Jo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Francois Daoust
> Sent: 14 April 2008 13:43
> To: public-bpwg-ct
> Subject: [agenda] CT call Tuesday 15 April 2008
> 
> 
> As I write this agenda, the draft has not been published as FPWD yet,
> but that should be done before tomorrow's call.
> 
> 
> -----
> Chair: François
> Staff Contact: François
> Known regrets: rob, bryan?, jo
> 
> Date: 2008-04-15T1400Z for 60mn
> Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
> Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
> IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.
> 
> Latest draft:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-
> drafts/Guidelines/080410
> 
> 
> Proposed agenda:
> 
> 1. Doc Status
> -------------
> - published as FPWD (well, should be)
> - next steps:
>    * address editorial notes
>    * rewrite unclear parts, change doc structure if needed
>    * use POWDER?
> - other discussions/topics you think we need to have? Any remark on the
> way to proceed?
> 
> 
> 2. Close without much discussion
> --------------------------------
> ACTION-625 on fd: Initiate discuss on the exception wording ref
> dangerous content
> ACTION-685 on fd: Investigate embedded original headers in altered
> requests (message/http), external ref to original headers
> application/external-body) and/or use of WARNING headers
> ACTION-686 on fd: Will organise the next CTTF Editors' meeting
> ACTION-731 on jo: Enact changes resolved in this meeting
> 
> Check your actions at:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
> 
> 
> 3. Alteration of request bodies (§4.1.2)
> ----------------------------------------
> Last message on the subject:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0015.html
> 
> - no need for examples in the doc?
> - something along the lines of (but clearer than!):
> "The CT-proxy MUST ensure that preceding transformations stay
> transparent from the point of view of the content provider, and MAY
> change the request method and body of a request that originates from a
> transformed web page accordingly."
> - the doc is clumsy on requests that originate from previously
> transformed responses and re-route via the CT-proxy
> 
> Related actions:
> ACTION-680 on rob: Provide a pseudo-code example of form transformation
> for CT document
> -> may not be needed after all
> ACTION-681 on fd: Ask aaron kemp for clarification of the character
> encoding issue
> 
> 
> 4. Linearization or zoom capability (§4.1.2)
> --------------------------------------------
> raised by SeanP:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0020.html
> 
> - amend/remove it?
> - has nothing to do in §4.1 (Proxy treatment of request) anyway, but
> rather in §4.4 (Proxy Response to User Agent)
> 
> 
> 5. Users preferences
> --------------------
> - list "request a restructured version of a desktop presentation" as one
> of the examples in 3.2.1?
> - append a bullet first list of 4.1.2: "any knowledge it has of user's
> preferences"
> - rewrite second point of "Proxies should not alter HTTP requests
> unless" to mention "user's preferences"
> 
> 
> 6. Control by Administrative or Other arrangements (3.2.3)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> - out of scope, so, to be consistent, we should only reference Control
> by User and Control By Server no reference to this in other parts of the
> doc: rewrite first bullet in 4.1.2?
> - Simplify title to "Control by Other Arrangements"?
> 
> 
> 7. ACTION-718: Summarize and continue discussion re Ajax/XHR requests
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0028.html
> - write a note (end of 4.2?) mentioning that responses sent to XHR calls
> should not use a content type that may be subject to transformation?
> - append something like "the response contains client-side scripts that
> may break if the page gets adapted" to the list of heuristics in 4.4?
> 
> 
> 8. New actions needed
> ---------------------
> Remaining editorial notes and issues need to be addressed.
> Some are not yet linked to any existing action.
> 
> 
> 9. AOB
> ------
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 09:42:01 UTC