[agenda] CT Call Tuesday 13 May 2008

Here we go for the late agenda...


-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: jo

Date: 2008-05-13T1400Z for 60mn
Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.

Latest draft:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080410


1. XHR last call comment
------------------------
Related action:
  ACTION-749 on fd

Discussion on public-webapi mailing-list:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008May/0064.html

Summary:
- XHR is just one of the cases. The use of iframes is another example 
that directly uses the browser for scripting purposes.
- won't be addressed in the XHR doc
- Cache-Control: no-transform seems the most valid answer to the problem.


2. Examination of URIs (§4.4)
-----------------------------
Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.html

Pros:
- it addresses a direct need for today's content.
- most CT-proxies already make use of such a list I suppose
- we should err on the side of caution

Cons:
- from a theorical point of view, URIs are supposed to be opaque
- save ".mobi", there's no standardized way to flag a mobile URI.

Proposed resolutions:
  PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention examination of URIs in the list of 
heuristics in 4.4 (transformation of the response) and mention Sean's 
list (wap.*, m.*, ...) as examples
  PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention examination of URIs as a bullet point in 
4.1.2 (transformation of the request) to complete the list "the proxy 
SHOULD analyze whether it intends to offer transformation services by 
referring to [...]".


3. One time URIs
----------------
Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0012.html

Proposed resolution:
  PROPOSED RESOLUTION: One-time URIs are already addressed in the 
guidelines. Close the discussion.


4. Consistency in the behavior of the CT-proxy
----------------------------------------------
For discussion.
Linked to an editorial note in 4.1.2 on the subject of "session"

- The "main" response may allow CT, but not the CSS stylesheet for 
instance. How should the CT-proxy behave in such a case?
- Are there cases when the guidelines may be waived for the sake of 
consistency?


5. AOB
------

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 08:05:57 UTC