RE: [agenda] Tuesday 27 May 2008, Regrets

Regrets for today. 

/Pontus 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-ct-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francois Daoust
Sent: den 26 maj 2008 20:46
To: public-bpwg-ct
Subject: [agenda] Tuesday 27 May 2008


-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: AndrewS, Jo

Date: 2008-05-27T1400Z 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. 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.


2. Idempotency - for clarity
----------------------------
Related action:
  ACTION-751 on fd

Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0027.html

Proposed resolution:
  PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Keep things as resolved re. idempotency for the 
end of 4.1.2. Valid use of "idempotent".


3. Sessions and consistency of user experience
----------------------------------------------
Related action:
  ACTION-755 on fd

Discussions:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0019.html
  http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-bpwg-minutes.html#item03
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0031.html 
(points 2. and 3.)

Summary:
- Do sessions raise a real problem? They don't seem to.
- We don't say anything about re-written links that target the proxy who 
re-issue a request to the origin server. Should we say something?
- There should be a link to the untransformed version of a page, but 
this latter page cannot, by definition, contain a link to the 
transformed version. Problem?


4. Link element
---------------
Discussions:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0007.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0021.html

Summary:
- Linking to a "handheld" version could be used by the CT-proxy to 
redirect the user to the appropriate representation.
- Linking to self could be used as a "handheld" flag, but that's a bit 
stepping away from what "alternate" means, isn't it?
- An empty string may be used to link to self.


5. Via header comment format
----------------------------
Related action:
  ACTION-750 on fd

Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0036.html

Summary:
- No easy way to define multiple values within one URI
- Suggestion is to "keep it simple": no attempt to define multiple values.


6. Cache-Control: no-transform
------------------------------
Discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0031.html

Summary:
- the CT-proxy is part of a bigger box that may not follow the 
guidelines and is out of scope.
- "Cache-Control: no-transform" is a switch for Content Providers.
- I think the guidelines are clear on that but feel free to suggest ways 
to make this clearer.


7. What's next
--------------
- X-Device-[original header name]: final name, for §4.1.4
- distinction between CT proxies and say Opera mini for §2.1 (ACTION-678 
on Sean)
- scoping bogus 200 responses for §4.1.2 (ACTION-673 on Aaron)

Apart from that, we're mostly done as far as the content is concerned.
If you have other comments, time to raise them!

+ some other issues and actions that we need to go through:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12



8. AOB
------

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 06:11:53 UTC