[minutes] CT Teleconference Tuesday 11 March 2008

Minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html
... and listed as text below.

Francois.


-----
11 Mar 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0003.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Francois, Jo, SeanP, AndrewS, Magnus, Heiko, Rob

    Regrets
           Bryan, MartinJ, Murari

    Chair
           francois

    Scribe
           Jo

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Introduction
          2. [6]Aarons Contribution ACTION-666
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Introduction

    francois: [review of what happened at the F2F and pointer to
    summary]
    ... jo proposed an editor's meeting ... I can host at Sofia (SE
    France)
    ... who would be able to come?
    ... dates would be next week or the week after

    <andrews> No, sorry

    <SeanP> I don't think I'll be able to make it

    jo: needs to be before Easter

    francois: perhaps we can wait an extra week?

    heiko: could we do it in the UK?

    jo: need a host in the UK
    ... if noone else wants to attend then Francois and I can sort this
    out between us

    PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Francois and Jo to roganise work as they see
    fit and present group with final pre-FPWD

    <andrews> +1 (and thank you)

    <rob> +1

    <francois> +1

    RESOLUTION: Francois and Jo to roganise work as they see fit and
    present group with final pre-FPWD

    jo: the only bits that open to discuss in that context are the bits
    after 3.1.4
    ... following resolution at F2F

Aarons Contribution ACTION-666

    <francois> [8]Aaron's contribution

       [8] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0000.html

    francois: this is content for 2.5 control of the behavior of the
    proxy
    ... goes in the same direction as we agreed to go
    ... maybe inconsistent with other things we say
    ... question is how should proxy indicate it could transform?
    ... if the content has not been modified then the proxy should
    indicate that a transformed version is available
    ... how should this happen?
    ... I don't see how this can happen without transforming the page

    magnus: there could be an insterstitial page

    francois: yes, I suggested that but it would be a lousy user
    experience

    heiko: i think it should be only done once

    seanP: you could insert a little link

    francois: yes, I noted that in response to aaron, but that would
    imply inconsistent behavior

    seanP: one possiblity is some user agreement that it you wanted it
    you could get it

    francois: the list of options should contain this as an option that
    the user can set
    ... sometimes you are looking at a page and you wish you could
    transform it or not
    ... if the server issued a cache-control no-transform the link would
    be missing
    ... the proxy MAY indicate that a transformed version is available
    only where it decided not to transform

    seanP: further on your point about having a link sometimes and
    sometimes not might be confusing, I am not really sure that would be
    a bad user experience

    rob: there is the issue about confusion and there is also the
    question about wanting to split the page and in those circumstances
    the user might want to transform in this case
    ... so its worth saying you can switch it off and on but saying how
    is probably out of scope

    heiko: can we differentiate three things - leave things completley
    untouched, second, just headers and footers

    francois: we are trying to allow the server to have a "switch off"
    and if we allow adding a link that is something to be avoided
    ... we could complete Aaron's text to say that this should not be
    done to pages that can not be transformed

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: keep aaron's text as it is for 2.5.1

    <francois> [9]current editor's text

       [9] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080227#sec-ServerResponse

    jo: Don't think we should discuss adding a link to the unmodified
    content to say that it could be modified

    <Magnus> Transforming proxies SHOULD provide to their users an
    indication that the content being viewed has been adapted for

    <Magnus> mobile presentation. If the content has not been modified,
    because of

    <Magnus> server or user preferences, but transformation is possible
    and

    <Magnus> potentially useful, the proxy MAY indicate that a
    transformed version

    <Magnus> is available.

    jo: that could appear later in the document - this section is an
    overview

    francois: take jo's point that whatever we resolve on the second bit
    it could go later in the document
    ... magnus, would you leave out the bit on saying that the content
    can be modified

    magnus: my main problem is that the resolution can't be left as is,
    as it has a number of comments
    ... I'd be happy with just taking the first sentence and then saying
    that the original content can be retireved without saying how
    exactly
    ... could also have the bit on sticky sessions
    ... I'm trying to look at this in the context of the document which
    is an overview
    ... [discusses how it can be worded]

    <francois> Transforming proxies MAY provide to their users:

    <francois> - An indication that the content being viewed has been
    adapted for

    <francois> mobile presentation.

    <francois> - An option to view the original, unmodified content.

    <francois> - some "sticky" preferences to their users.

    francois: this is to emphasize the point that this is just a
    discussion

    seanp: we have talked about providing a link to unmodified content -
    what to do if the unmodified content crashes the phone?

    francois: good point but does not remove the need for a link in the
    generic case, the proxy could offer a warning
    ... in that case

    <francois> Transforming proxies SHOULD provide to their users:

    <francois> - An indication that the content being viewed has been
    adapted for

    <francois> mobile presentation.

    <francois> - An option to view the original, unmodified content.

    <francois> - some session settings to their users.

    jo: I'd prefer to leave the normative wording even though this is
    less of a prescriptive section, otherwise there's a danger that the
    document may appear to contradict itself when it goes on to discuss
    it later
    ... I think it's SHOULD on the first two and a MAY on the third

    <francois> Transforming proxies SHOULD provide to their users:

    <francois> - An indication that the content being viewed has been
    adapted for

    <francois> mobile presentation.

    <francois> - An option to view the original, unmodified content.

    <francois> They MAY also provide session settings to their users.

    +1

    <andrews> +1

    <Magnus> +1

    <scribe> ACTION: Jo to reword 2.5.1 along the lines proposed by
    Francois [recorded in
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-706 - Reword 2.5.1 along the lines
    proposed by Francois [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-18].

    <SeanP> +1

    francois: additional qeustion, should we mention examples of session
    settings

    magnus: that would be OK

    francois: relates to the list of directives we removed from the
    document
    ... seems to me to be useful

    magnus: examples being: never transform no matter what, only
    transform if absolutely necessary, transform as much as possible and
    so on

    jo: that is similar to the list we will try to codify in POWDER as
    server preferences

    <scribe> ACTION: Jo to include examples in 2.5.1 bullet 3 per the
    dicussion above [recorded in
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-707 - Include examples in 2.5.1 bullet
    3 per the dicussion above [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-18].

    heiko: I expect POWDER is for the device capability database
    ... it's a follow on to WURFL?

    jo: no
    ... we have been looking at it as a way of describing server
    preferences

    heiko: we need to capture the dependences on other projects, we need
    to understand device capabilities

    francois: we don't want to depend on POWDER
    ... and don't want to be delayed by it
    ... or indeed the DDR
    ... on 2.5.2

    <francois> Transforming proxies MUST provide support for control
    over the content

    <francois> transformation process by origin servers.

    <francois> These control mechanisms are detailed in section 3
    (Behavior of Components).

    <hgerlach> sorry quys, I have to leave for the next call:-(, cheers
    Heiko

    <andrews> +q

    andrew: are we only referring to no-transform here?

    francois: the controls are in section 3, at the moment it is true
    that no-transform is the only control we have but maybe there will
    be more control by POWDER later

    jo: points out that vary and warning transformation applied are both
    means of control

    francois: I don't think we should list warning transformation
    applied as a means of control

    jo: agreed

    <scribe> ACTION: Jo to update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion
    and Seoul resolution on preferences [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-708 - Update 2.5.2 in accordance with
    discussion and Seoul resolution on preferences [on Jo Rabin - due
    2008-03-18].

    francois: aaron leaves 2.5.3 untouched, do we need to say more

    <SeanP> This is another place where some examples may help.

    jo: not sure

    francois: it's a bit useless as is so examples would help

    <francois> ACTION: daoust to write some examples for 2.5.3 [recorded
    in [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-709 - Write some examples for 2.5.3 [on
    Fran├žois Daoust - due 2008-03-18].

    jo: I'll try to update the doc in the next couple of days

    <francois> Close ACTION-666

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-666 Draft section 2.6 listing user control
    options that SHOULD be supported closed

    [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to write some examples for 2.5.3 [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to include examples in 2.5.1 bullet 3 per the
    dicussion above [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to reword 2.5.1 along the lines proposed by
    Francois [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion and
    Seoul resolution on preferences [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.133
     ([19]CVS log)
     $Date: 2008/03/11 16:09:13 $

      [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 16:13:28 UTC