[minutes] CT Call Tuesday 24 June 2008


The minutes of today's call are available at:

... and listed as text below.

In short: difficult to see through a document on which we resolved to 
change so many things. The remaining issue on section 3.2 would best:
  1. be rationalized on the mailing-list
  2. be resolved once we get a change to see an updated draft.


24 Jun 2008



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-bpwg-irc


           Francois, Pontus, jo, rob, heiko, andrews, SeanP




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Summary from F2F
          2. [6]ACTION-769: ping Soonho for feedback
          3. [7]ISSUE-242: User Expression of preferences
      * [8]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 24 June 2008

    <hgerlach> Hi Guys, I saw you did a great job while the F2F - Thanks
    a lot

    <scribe> scribe: Jo

Summary from F2F

    francois: a great deal of progress - spent whole day of first day on
    ... want to summarise the progress
    ... as listed in the agenda
    ... 1) we are going to make the doc normative, means rechartering
    the group
    ... 2) "extensive" discussion about link element and decided to
    re-introduce "link to self"
    ... we discussed the semantics of link element and resolved a
    convention to disambiguate the two senses of link element viz "I am"
    vs "I can be" mobile friendly
    ... 3) we decided to rewrite sect 4.1.2 as "proxy treatment of HTTP
    ... 4) use of OPTIONS was relegated to "scope for future work"
    ... 5) we remain silent on whether a CT proxy should be mobileOK and
    whether it may/should leave mobileOK content alone
    ... 6) we are not going to discuss "session" but discuss "Web site"
    and leave the term undefined
    ... don't have to do content tasting on all resources of a Web site
    but should be done when following a link to a new Web site
    ... 7) no difference between proxies that do URI rewriting and those
    that don't
    ... hence URI rewriting proxies are in scope
    ... 8) we're going to move the requirements to Scope and remove the
    ones we could not meet into scope for future work
    ... 9) so now we are left with persistent expression of user
    ... as the remaining outstanding issue

    <hgerlach> AI 261?

    francois: any questions or comments?

    heiko: ref ISSUE-261, I mentioned that I would like to have an allow

    francois: allow and disallow list is part of the remaining issue

    heiko: [@@ scribe could not hear]

    francois: we will come back to allow and disallow list as part of
    the discussion of this issue

    <francois> [9]minutes F2F day on CT

       [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0054.html

ACTION-769: ping Soonho for feedback

    <francois> ACTION-769?

    <trackbot> ACTION-769 -- Fran├žois Daoust to ping Soonho on providing
    feedback -- due 2008-06-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW


      [10] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/769

    <francois> Close ACTION-769

    <trackbot> ACTION-769 Ping Soonho on providing feedback closed

    <francois> ACTION-711?

    <trackbot> ACTION-711 -- Soonho Lee to provide Feedback on Content
    Transformation Document -- due 2008-03-13 -- OPEN


      [11] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/711

    <francois> ACTION: daoust to see with Soonho if he can find someone
    else to provide feedback on the document [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-804 - See with Soonho if he can find
    someone else to provide feedback on the document [on Fran├žois Daoust
    - due 2008-07-01].

    francois: soonho has moved to a new job, so can't do it

    jo: how about finding someone else to pick it up?

ISSUE-242: User Expression of preferences

    francois: we started discussing this at the F2F but we ran out of
    time and were totally exhausted
    ... we decided that it's permissible to ask for a restructured
    version on a site by site basis
    ... if there is a blanker user preference, if there are multiple
    representations then the CT proxy should tell the user
    ... we clarified that a CT proxy where there is an arrangement with
    the server this is out of scope of the guidelines, it counts as
    ... the no-transform directive means that a redirect is needed
    ... @@@ could not quite keep up, referenced in agenda
    ... I want to know if we agree on the goal of addressing section 3.2
    "Control of the behavior of the proxy"
    ... the idea is to integrate this section in the rest of the
    ... and it addresses Sean's point as to clarifying where user
    control ...

    <andrews> Zarkim, unmute me

    jo: I think that we should have a new draft before considering this
    in detail
    ... enough of the document has changed to make it difficult to see
    how this all pans out without doing htis
    ... unfortuantely I am not going to get to this for a little while
    as I have to do a draft of BP and one of mobileOK as top priority to
    meet the 15 July timeframe for major announcement of BP work

    francois: ref discussion last week, then we may be able to integrate
    more clearly where control takes effect
    ... and indicate quite clearly where control takes effect

    [above in answer to a question from Andrews requesting

    francois: I think we should continue discussion of the issue on the
    mailing list

    seanP: I agree I am a bit confused now too and am fine with doing it
    this way

    francois: this includes allow and disallow lists in its reference to
    administrative arrangements

    <hgerlach> +1

    francois: in answer to Heiko's earlier question, so we should wait
    for the updated draft
    ... and I am willing to do all the work, Jo, don't worry

    [scribe may not have heard the last properly :)]

    francois: not sure I made that commitment, Jo
    ... any other issues we can take on today's call?

    [no comments]

    francois: so let's close the call now

    heiko: do we have a time line, colleagues are asking

    francois: the main issue is that the BP doc is going to rec, and
    there is other stuff like the mobileOK doc that also needs
    refreshing and those docs have priority over ct because they are
    about to make major rec track transitions
    ... so basically we are waiting for Jo, and if no one has a comment
    at that point then we will publish a LCWD and see what people say

    jo: content transformation summit event is informally planned for
    September in London, and we hope to be in Candidate Recommendation
    by then, or at the very least still in Last Call

    jo: hope to have something in next few weeks

    francois: OK then let's adjourn

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to see with Soonho if he can find someone else
    to provide feedback on the document [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:55:32 UTC