- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:39:48 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
Minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
Thanks for scribing, Sean.
François.
25 Mar 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0029.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
MartinJ, SeanP, francois, jo, rob
Regrets
kemp, Magnus, Bryan, andrews
Chair
francois
Scribe
SeanP
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]ACTION-682: Write a proposal on the HEAD request
handling (§3.1.2)
2. [6]ACTION-683: Inference on URIs (§3.1.2)
3. [7]ACTION-684: Bad practice to strip comments in VIA header
(§3.1.4)
4. [8]ACTION-685: how to embed original headers (§3.1.4)
5. [9]ACTION-706: Reword §2.5.1
6. [10]ACTION-707: Include examples in §2.5.1 bullet 3
7. [11]ACTION-708: Update 2.5.2
8. [12]ACTION-709: Write some examples for 2.5.3
9. [13]ACTION-718: re Ajax/XHR requests and CT
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot-ng> Date: 25 March 2008
Zakim aadd is me
<francois> Scribe: SeanP
<francois> ScribeNick: SeanP
Francois: Today we should go through our actions.
ACTION-682: Write a proposal on the HEAD request handling (§3.1.2)
Francois: Based on Martin's text
<francois> [15]Martin's proposal
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0009.html
Francois: I simplified one of the sentences.
<francois> "Clients can issue HTTP HEAD requests in order to
determine if a
<francois> resource is of a type and/or size that they are capable
of handling. A
<francois> proxy may convert a HEAD request into a GET request if it
requires the
<francois> response body to determine the characteristics of the
transformed
<francois> response that it would return if the client issues a GET
request. Where
<francois> this occurs, the proxy should (subject to HTTP cache
directives) cache
<francois> the response that it receives so that if the client
immediately follows
<francois> the HEAD request with a GET request for the same URI, the
proxy is not
Francois: Any problems with the proposed text?
<francois> required to send a second GET request to the server."
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: use above text to resolve ACTION-682
<jo> subject to HTTP cache directives => providing in accordance
with normal HTTP caching rules
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: leave above text to resolve
ACTION-682 in the hands of the editor
<jo> +1
<MartinJ> +1
<rob> +1
<francois> RESOLUTION: leave above text to resolve ACTION-682 in the
hands of the editor
<francois> Close ACTION-682
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-682 Write a proposal on the HEAD request
handling. closed
ACTION-683: Inference on URIs (§3.1.2)
<francois> [16]rob's contribution
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0019.html
Francois: Rob, you suggested we no change anything
Rob: I think the statement that is already there is all we can say.
Francois: I think that is fine. We'll leave it up to CT proxy
vendors.
... Jo are you OK with that?
Jo: This is another "remaining silent" thing.
... It is worth mentioning that the server could give you some
clues.
... If we are going to go with POWDER we should mention it in this
section
Francois: Unsure about what we should say about POWDER.
Jo: Should say that these resources do this, those do that, etc.
... I think we have time. We've have time to find out how we should
do the POWDER
Francois: Not sure how to put it in the document given that POWDER
does not exist.
Jo: I think we are pretty close to resolving everything we want to
put in the document except for the POWDER stuff.
... I think it is time to go to a FPWD and leave as editorial notes
about the richer vocabulary.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for ACTION-683, no change in bullet
3 of 3.1.2
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for ACTION-683, no change in bullet
3 of 3.1.2 save POWDER editorial's note
<rob> +1
<MartinJ> +1
<jo> +1
<francois> RESOLUTION: for ACTION-683, no change in bullet 3 of
3.1.2 save POWDER editorial's
<francois> Close ACTION-683
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-683 Raise an issue on inferencing from the
structure of the URI what assumptions to make about another from the
point of view of the CT Proxy closed
ACTION-684: Bad practice to strip comments in VIA header (§3.1.4)
Francois: Jo, you mentioned in 3.1.4 that this reverses HTTP
... HTTP says the proxy may strip comments.
Jo: It is probably worth finding out why HTTP says this.
... It seems kind of odd that HTTP says this.
Francois: Good point. I'll ask an HTTP expert.
Jo: Should say that if you are complying with transformation
guidelines, you should not strip the comment.
<francois> ACTION: daoust to check why HTTP RFC states comments MAY
be removed from a VIA header. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-722 - Check why HTTP RFC states
comments MAY be removed from a VIA header. [on François Daoust - due
2008-04-01].
Francois: Jo, do you think you will come up with a note.
Jo: The answer about having the editorial note is yes.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note, pending FD's
ACTION-722
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note on it being bad
practice to strip comments from Via HEader (ACTION-684), pending
FD's ACTION-722
+1
<MartinJ> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note on it being bad
practice to strip comments from Via Header (ACTION-684) and that
this is not consistent with HTTP, pending FD's ACTION-722
<francois> +1
<jo> RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note on it being bad practice
to strip comments from Via Header (ACTION-684) and that this is not
consistent with HTTP, pending FD's ACTION-722
ACTION-685: how to embed original headers (§3.1.4)
Francois: I sent an email on Friday about this.
<inserted> I do not see any possibility to embed original headers in
the generic case without requiring changes on the content providers
side
Francois: Maybe we could address this next week since everyone was
on vacation at the end of the week.
... HTTP doesn't say anything about bodies in GET requests.
Jo: I think it does.
... We could do some tests with real web servers.
... We can test whether if we put an extra thing in a request,
existing servers fail.
Francois: We may have to make a test.
Jo: Agreed.
ACTION-706: Reword §2.5.1
Jo: We'll need to read your email about this and have a discussion
next week.
Francois: We had a discussion about control by the user.
<francois> [18]2.5.1
[18]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313#d0e331
Francois: Jo, you added an editorial note. Do we need to resolve on
this?
Jo: The text of 2.5.1 as it stands was proposed by Bryan.
... I'm wonding if what is in 2.5.1 is strong enough.
Rob: My comment is that some of the CT servers are on particular web
sites. They wouldn't bother to set up a session.
... It is probably best to leave it is "MAY".
Francois: I may agree.
... We agree that static settings are out of scope.
... What we are really talking about is session settings.
... We'll leave it as a MAY?
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: stick to "may" in 2.5.1, and change
"persistent" to something less strong
Jo: I think we need to think about what a "session" is.
... not sure what we mean by session right now.
... I think 2.5.1 needs to be taken on the list.
<francois> ACTION: daoust to raise discussion on session settings vs
persistent settings for 2.5.1 and 2.5.3 [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-723 - Raise discussion on session
settings vs persistent settings for 2.5.1 and 2.5.3 [on François
Daoust - due 2008-04-01].
ACTION-707: Include examples in §2.5.1 bullet 3
Francois: Examples look fine to me.
<francois> Close ACTION-707
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-707 Include examples in 2.5.1 bullet 3 per the
dicussion above closed
ACTION-708: Update 2.5.2
<jo> ACTION-708?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-708 -- Jo Rabin to update 2.5.2 in accordance
with discussion and Seoul resolution on preferences -- due
2008-03-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/708
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/708
Francois: Not sure I remember what this action was about.
... Was to rewrite section 2.5.2 given what happened a the Seoul F2F
... It was about if the user preferences contradict the server
preferences.
... We do have a resolution on this.
Jo: Discussed this in the context of that this is the way CSS works.
... we need a better way to say this.
<jo> ACTION: Jo to raise discussion on list as to clarification of
2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict server
preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user
specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the
server." [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-724 - Raise discussion on list as to
clarification of 2.5.2 \"In cases where user preferences contradict
server preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the
user specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of
the server.\" [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-01].
<francois> Close ACTION-708
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-708 Update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion
and Seoul resolution on preferences closed
ACTION-709: Write some examples for 2.5.3
<francois> [22]fd's proposal
[22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0018.html
<francois> "The preferences of users and of servers MAY be
ascertained by means
<francois> outside the scope of this document. These means include
but are not
<francois> limited to:
<francois> - the use by transforming proxies of a disallow-list of
Web sites for
<francois> which content transformation is known to be useless
and/or to break
<francois> delivered content.
<francois> - the use by the transforming proxies of an allow-list of
Web sites for
<francois> which content transformation is known to be necessary.
<francois> - user static preferences, e.g. provisioned by their CT
service provider
<francois> or directly by the user through self-care web sites.
<francois> - terms and conditions of service, as agreed upon between
the user and
<francois> the CT service provider."
Francois: This is where I had a chat with Bryan about static and
persistent settings as opposed to session settings.
... The third point needs to be re-examined in light of the earlier
discussion on this call.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove user static preferences in
above text for the time being, and use the resulting text for 2.5.3
under ACTION-709
Jo: These look pretty complete.
<jo> +1
<francois> RESOLUTION: remove user static preferences in above text
for the time being, and use the resulting text for 2.5.3 under
ACTION-709
ACTION-718: re Ajax/XHR requests and CT
<francois> [23]fd's thoughts on this
[23]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0028.html
Francois: I raised this problem.
... I tried to rephrase the discussion about this problem.
... the XHR request will use the same headers as a normal request,
so there is no way to tell if it is XHR request.
... for simple calls in a web page; it it transformed the page, the
CT proxy should know how to handle the request.
... the problem is for untransformed pages, it doesn't know that an
XHR request should not be transformed as well.
... Martin said that requests and responses should only be
transformed when the CT proxy knows that they originated from a
transformed request.
... Bryan said that as a best practice, XHR request should change
the UA.
... Good idea, will be hard to ask all developers to do this.
... Could recommend that developers add no-transform to XHR request.
Jo: no-transform is consistent with other things we have said in the
document.
Francois: We've already said that elsewhere in the document.
Jo: We said we weren't going to discuss clients and users and we are
drifting back to that.
... In this case it may we worth saying something.
Francois: I don't see how we can make it work.
... How can the proxy determine that calls originate from a page if
it did not transform the page.
... Suppose you have a web page that contains too much JavaScript to
transform. In the page there are some XHR calls.
... The CT proxy must be consistent.. It must not transform these
XHR calls. There is no real way to detect that it is an XHR call.
... It will work in the future. We need to worry about legacy stuff.
Jo: Is this much of an issue. What are the chances that what comes
back is in the form that needs to be transformed?
Francois: We may be creating an issue out of nothing.
... Let me come up with some smarter text on that.
... I'll come up with something along the lines of a warning about
XHR.
Jo: I don't see anywhere in this document about what content types
the CT proxy will intervene in.
... We should put something in about that.
Francois: We mention content types in the list of heuristics for
determining whether a page is mobile.
Jo: It would be interesting to learn what is left alone.
<francois> ACTION: SeanP to send a list of content-types for which
content transformation applies [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - SeanP
<francois> ACTION: Patterson to send a list of content-types for
which content transformation applies [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-725 - Send a list of content-types for
which content transformation applies [on Sean Patterson - due
2008-04-01].
<jo> action- 4
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to check why HTTP RFC states comments MAY be
removed from a VIA header. [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to raise discussion on session settings vs
persistent settings for 2.5.1 and 2.5.3 [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to raise discussion on list as to clarification of
2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict server
preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user
specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the
server." [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Patterson to send a list of content-types for which
content transformation applies [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 16:40:26 UTC