- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:18:28 +0200
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
Resolutions taken during the call:
- ref ISSUE-270 3.1.5.3 and 3.2.3 drop these editorial notes
- add a note in 3.3.6.2 that states that transformation is not possible
without breaking end to end security
- Stick to our decision not to mention examples of Content-Types in 3.3.6
- Drop note on meta http-equiv no-transform and move to appendix
- Introduce some text stating that for the purposes of consistent
pagination proxies MAY serve stale data but when doing do SHOULD notify
the user that this is the case and SHOULD provide a simple means of
retrieving a fresh copy - noting that from a process point of view it is
a "feature at risk"
We shared the load and agreed to write some text by Thursday evening to
fill the examples in Appendix B.
Schedule:
- Jo will circulate a new draft by tomorrow evening
- The main body of the Working Group will be told to have a look,
because we plan to publish this as Last Call without much changes (save
the examples)
- We'll review the examples, the changes, and take final resolutions on
the items we could not address today next Tuesday.
- We'll see if we can call it a spec and resolve to publish a Last Call
on 31 July 2008.
Francois
22 Jul 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0023.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Francois, rob, SeanP, jo, andrews
Regrets
Pontus, Aaron, Bryan
Chair
francois
Scribe
rob
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Appendix B Examples
2. [6]CT and direct choice of user experience
3. [7]HTTPS link re-writing
4. [8]No mention of Content-Types in 3.3.6
5. [9]meta http-equiv note in 3.2.2
6. [10]Pagination and caching directives
7. [11]Link element section structure (3.2.3.2)
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Appendix B Examples
francois: Jo's right, we can't go to last call with no Appendix B
... 1st option is an "intermediate working draft" to give us 2 weeks
to finish it
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder if folks can contribute to this
within 1 week?
francois: 2nd option is just finish it then go last call in 2 weeks
jo: dependshow quick we can get the examples together
... or we could publish with one example and then expect comments
back like "you need more examples!"
... whilst secretly working on those
... Would help if CTTF members each provide one example
<jo> [would much prefer if we did what we meant and actually publish
a final last call draft with all the examples we mean to include]
francois: good idea to share load
SeanP: yes, happy to do an example
AndrewS: can I have B4?
SeanP: ok, i'll take B2
<francois> ACTION: andrew to write some text for CT Appendix B.4
[recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-815 - Write some text for CT Appendix B.4
[on Andrew Swainston - due 2008-07-29].
<francois> ACTION: Sean to write some text for CT Appendix B.2
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-816 - Write some text for CT Appendix B.2
[on Sean Patterson - due 2008-07-29].
<francois> ACTION: rob to write some text for CT Appendix B.5
[recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - rob
<francois> ACTION: robert to write some text for CT Appendix B.5
[recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-817 - Write some text for CT Appendix B.5
[on Robert Finean - due 2008-07-29].
<francois> ACTION: daoust to write some text for CT Appendix B.3
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-818 - Write some text for CT Appendix B.3
[on François Daoust - due 2008-07-29].
francois: so please examples before Friday
jo: Thursday evening is best, then I can get another draft out on
Friday
CT and direct choice of user experience
francois: trying to rationalise the issue; from a technical
viewpoint there is no inconsistency but might it confuse users?
<francois> [18]ISSUE-270
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0062.html
jo: suggest we drop this
... there's not much we can say, so let's not try
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref ISSUE-270 3.1.5.3 and 3.2.3 drop these
editorial notes
+1
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: ref ISSUE-270 3.1.5.3 and 3.2.3 drop these editorial
notes
<francois> Close ISSUE-270
HTTPS link re-writing
<francois> ACTION-813?
<trackbot> ACTION-813 -- Heiko Gerlach to draft some clearer wording
of 3.3.6.2 on HTTPS link re-writing -- due 2008-07-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/813
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/813
francois: Bryan had a lot of comments on this
<francois> [20]discussion
[20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0011.html
francois: but we need to avoid prescribing workings, we just need to
prescribe outcomes that are possible
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: amend text in 3.3.6.2 with some
clarification that "to avoid decryption and transformation of the
resources the links refer to" means that the CT-proxy must be
bypassed in practice.
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to disagree with the propsoed resolution and
to suggest adding a note to stress that transformation is not
possible without breaking end to end security
<andrews> I agree with Jo
jo: wants to avoid any doubt that "when content is transformed
end-to-end security is broken"
<SeanP> Agree, leave text as is
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: add a note in 3.3.6.2 that states
that transformation is not possible without breaking end to end
security
<andrews> +1
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: add a note in 3.3.6.2 that states that transformation is
not possible without breaking end to end security
<jo> ACTION: jo to add a note per resolution on CT 3.3.6.3 on end to
end security [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-819 - Add a note per resolution on CT
3.3.6.3 on end to end security [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-07-29].
<francois> Close ACTION-813
<trackbot> ACTION-813 Draft some clearer wording of 3.3.6.2 on HTTPS
link re-writing closed
No mention of Content-Types in 3.3.6
francois: I'm fine with the decision from several months ago
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick to our decision not to mention
examples of Content-Types in 3.3.6
jo: SeanP suggested Content-Type improvements that are in the
forthcoming draft
<francois> Close ACTION-812
<trackbot> ACTION-812 Dig in the archives to check reason not to
mention content types in the list of heuristics closed
RESOLUTION: Stick to our decision not to mention examples of
Content-Types in 3.3.6
meta http-equiv note in 3.2.2
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: not to confuse readers, move the
note on meta http-equiv from 3.2.2 to an appendix on legacy servers
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Drop note on meta http-equiv no-transform
and move to appendix
<francois> +1
<andrews> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: Drop note on meta http-equiv no-transform and move to
appendix
Pagination and caching directives
<francois> ACTION-811?
<trackbot> ACTION-811 -- François Daoust to send a summary of the
pagination note (3.1.4) to the mailing-list -- due 2008-07-22 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/811
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/811
francois: don't think there's need for mention of this
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add a note stating that when a
transforming proxy is serving stale content as a result of
pagination (or for other reasons) it SHOULD note that the data is
stale
francois: we can either drop the section or add requirements that
CT-proxy must cache it
<Zakim> rob, you wanted to say real users don't understand this
stuff
francois: but if i'm scrolling around a page on a browser I don't
get informed when it turns stale
<jo> _refresh_ for an up to date
rob: i think we have to point out that the right thing to do is
serve cached (and therefore likely stale)
jo: still think we should point out they need to refresh to get the
latest copy
SeanP: maybe only do this if you reload the same section of the
page?
rob: likely to get this message a lot if cookies imply content is
automatically stale
jo: didn't mean that, only meant if Expires was set explicitly
... this is a deviation from accepted HTTP
francois: if we're deviating from HTTP we should note that's the
case
<Zakim> rob, you wanted to say it's standard HTTP if the CT-proxy is
a "virtual browser"
SeanP: tending to agree with Jo if I come back an hour later and go
to sub-page 2 we should note it's old
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Introduce some text stating that for the
purposes of consistent pagination proxies MAY serve stale data but
when doing do SHOULD notify the user that this is the case and
SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to say that we defined it as not being a
"virtual browser"
rob: it's standard HTTP if the CT-proxy and handset are grouped
together as a single "virtual browser" entity
jo: we haven't defined it like that though
andrews: user-experience is that typically you find out content has
expired when they hit back buttons, so maybe they will be used to
such warnings
... I think of CT-proxy as an extension of the origin server, not of
the browser
SeanP: if page does expire quickly they will get that message a lot
jo: we're not prescribing a message, just noting they may be
provided with a message and means to refresh
<jo> +1
<francois> 0
-1
<andrews> 0 (???)
<SeanP> 0, still thinking about it
<Zakim> rob, you wanted to say MAY not SHOULD
rob: prefer MAY not SHOULD
jo: we could continue with SHOULD until implementations. If
implementations show it's irritating, take it out
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Introduce some text stating that for the
purposes of consistent pagination proxies MAY serve stale data but
when doing do SHOULD notify the user that this is the case and
SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy - noting
that from a process point of view it is a "feature at risk"
francois: do we need to state this in the document?
<francois> +1
jo: no, just in the actions
<jo> +1
0
<SeanP> Still 0, I like the "may" proposal
andrews: I do see the logic of treating sub-pages as just scrolling
... so prefer MAY to SHOULD
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to point out to andrews ...
jo: but paging where there's clearly comms with a remote server
doesn't feel like just scrolling up and down
... so believe we should give SHOULD a shot at implementation
andrews: ok maybe for a last-call draft
jo: to move from Candidate Rec to Rec must have implementations
... so we'd find out the experience at that stage
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Introduce some text stating that for the
purposes of consistent pagination proxies MAY serve stale data but
when doing do SHOULD notify the user that this is the case and
SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy - noting
that from a process point of view it is a "feature at risk"
<jo> +1
<francois> +1
0
<andrews> 0
<SeanP> 0
RESOLUTION: Introduce some text stating that for the purposes of
consistent pagination proxies MAY serve stale data but when doing do
SHOULD notify the user that this is the case and SHOULD provide a
simple means of retrieving a fresh copy - noting that from a process
point of view it is a "feature at risk"
Link element section structure (3.2.3.2)
jo: already addressed in new draft
... so I'll circulate new draft
... and then we can finish this call on-time
francois: ok, we'll see if next week we're ready for last call
jo: yes, so I'll note that in the draft
... So draft this afternoon, then everyone contribute Appendix B
examples then final draft Friday
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: andrew to write some text for CT Appendix B.4
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to write some text for CT Appendix B.3
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to add a note per resolution on CT 3.3.6.3 on end
to end security [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: rob to write some text for CT Appendix B.5 [recorded
in [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: robert to write some text for CT Appendix B.5
[recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to write some text for CT Appendix B.2 [recorded
in [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2008 15:19:04 UTC