- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 17:25:46 +0200
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-minutes.html
... and pasted as text below.
Resolutions:
- proxies SHOULD NOT send duplicate requests for comparison purpose only
- mention content-types as a contributory heuristic (no specific
mentions) and list the DOCTYPEs mentioned by Sean
- include X-Forwarded-For and use of meta http-equiv in next revision
Todo:
- investigate on the "link" confusing mechanism (fd)
- precise "still in doubt" at the end of 4.1.2 (jo)
- review "Rules for Responsible Reformatting: A Developer Manifesto" for
possible inclusions in our CT guidelines
Francois.
06 May 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0003.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
hgerlach, SeanP, francois, jo, rob
Regrets
andrews, bryan, martinj, murari, kemp, magnus
Chair
francois
Scribe
rob
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Issuing two requests, idempotency, comparison, etc
2. [6]Content-types and doctypes
3. [7]Link element in HTML requests
4. [8]AOB: About inclusion of a few points of Luca's manifesto
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Issuing two requests, idempotency, comparison, etc
<francois> [10]topic
[10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0043.html
francois: continuing from last week, what are the dangers of a CT
proxy issuing 2 requests and comparing the responses?
... obviously unneccessary traffic/congestion should be avoided
... but there could be a case for issuing a 2nd request with altered
HTTP headers in the event that the 1st response is somehow not
satisfactory
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2.1: in §4.1.2, replace "Issue a
request with unaltered headers and examine the response (see 4.4
[...])" with "Issue a request with unaltered headers and examine the
response to check whether it's a 'request rejected' one"
<Zakim> rob, you wanted to change "request rejected" for
"unsatisfactory"
hgerlach: still remind everyone that there are a lot of one-time
URLs used on mobile phones
francois: this "tasting" and possible 2nd request is only used when
there is no a-priori knowledge of the server
so subsequent requests to the same server are already using the
a-priori knowledge
hgerlach: but often discovery is from one server and delivery is
from a different server
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to say that the reference to 4.4 should stay
as it is about determining whether the response is mobile friendly
hgerlach: in this case there could be issues with the one-time URL
on the delivery server that has not been visited before
seanP: the word "rejected" could be problematic, eg if the HTTP
response is 200 OK but we still want something different
... eg a smartphone might get a desktop version and we could want to
spoof a less-smart mobile to get a more mobile-friendly presentation
francois: does anyone want to propose more comprehensive text?
... in practice, do CT proxies compare responses from 2 requests and
then return whichever they prefer?
seanP: currently no, we only make one request, except where the
response has alternate links in it which we then follow
hgerlach: problem is when a CT proxy spoofs a desktop browser 1st -
I'd prefer use mobile User-Agent 1st
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: at the end of §4.1.2, complete "Not
to break existing content, the proxy SHOULD send only one request"
with "In particular, it SHOULD NOT issue duplicate requests for
comparison purpose as a generic rule."
jo: where does this go?
francois: replaces editorial note at end of 4.1.2
seanP: what does the 2nd clause add to the 1st?
francois: it's an example for emphasis, not a seperate requirement
jo: prefer to remove "Not to break existing content"
francois: it is an extract from last week's resolution - but it's in
the Editor's hands
<hgerlach> i prefer that what we already have in there in the orig
document
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Note: CT Prxoies SHOULD avoid sending
duplicate requests where [possible and specifically SHOULD NOT send
duplicate requests for comparison purposes only
<francois> +1
<hgerlach> +1
<SeanP> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Note: CT Proxies SHOULD avoid sending
duplicate requests where [possible and specifically SHOULD NOT send
duplicate requests for comparison purposes only
RESOLUTION: Note: CT Proxies SHOULD avoid sending duplicate requests
where possible and specifically SHOULD NOT send duplicate requests
for comparison purposes only
<Zakim> rob, you wanted to ask does it have to be 100% clear?
<jo> ACTION: Jo to propose text for the final part of 4.1.2 taking
into account resolutions and discussion on this and the previous
call [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-752 - Propose text for the final part
of 4.1.2 taking into account resolutions and discussion on this and
the previous call [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-13].
Content-types and doctypes
<francois> [12]Sean's list of content-types
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0045.html
<francois> [13]Sean's list of doctypes
[13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.html
jo: do we really want to list all this in our document? Especially
as Content-Type is such a broken mechanism in practise
... <DOCTYPE>s are useful and the list is relatively short
<hgerlach> +1
<francois> [14]fd's try to rationalize
[14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0004.html
seanP: agree with Jo, the Content-Type list is really only examples,
it's not complete
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention content type as a contributory
heuristic (no specific mentions) and list the DOCTYPEs mentioned by
Sean in
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.
html
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.html
<francois> +1
<hgerlach> +1
<SeanP> +1
+1
francois: and no-one wants to be more restrictive?
RESOLUTION: Mention content type as a contributory heuristic (no
specific mentions) and list the DOCTYPEs mentioned by Sean in
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.
html
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.html
<francois> Close ACTION-725
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-725 Send a list of content-types for which
content transformation applies closed
Link element in HTML requests
<francois> <link rel="alternate" media="handheld"
type="[content-type]" href="[uri]" />
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to express confusion as to what this
convention means
francois: question is if you are the mobile-friendly page, do you
link to yourself to show you are the handheld version?
jo: exactly, it's a useful mechanism to link to more appropriate
versions but how can you identify what user-agents THIS version is
suitable for?
seanP: can we ask Aaron? Google likes this mechanism
francois: OK, I'll ask Aaron
AOB: About inclusion of a few points of Luca's manifesto
jo: AOB - there are a couple of things in Luca's "manifesto" that
could be useful here
francois: I wanted to report on this on the mailing list 1st then
take resolutions in a subsequent call
jo: what if I include them in the next edition and then everyone
reviews?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Include X-Forwarded-For and use of meta
http-equiv in next rev
+1
<SeanP> +1
<francois> +1
<hgerlach> +1
RESOLUTION: Include X-Forwarded-For and use of meta http-equiv in
next rev
<hgerlach> bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to propose text for the final part of 4.1.2 taking
into account resolutions and discussion on this and the previous
call [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:26:16 UTC