- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:54:58 +0200
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-bpwg-minutes.html
... 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.
Francois.
24 Jun 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0040.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Francois, Pontus, jo, rob, heiko, andrews, SeanP
Regrets
Chair
francois
Scribe
Jo
Contents
* [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
it
... 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
request"
... 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
preferences
... 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
list
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 -- François Daoust to ping Soonho on providing
feedback -- due 2008-06-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[10]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/769
[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
<trackbot>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/711
[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
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-804 - See with Soonho if he can find
someone else to provide feedback on the document [on François 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
adaptation
... 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
document
... 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
clarification]
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
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:55:32 UTC