- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:21:41 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
We took a few resolutions on the remaining Last Call comments:
- ref LC-2038, resolve partial. Answer "no, these are not best
practices, but guidelines". Don't change the text.
- ref LC-2049 resolve no, URI patterns can never be more than a
heuristic, but we will move the list of examples to a non normative appendix
- ref LC-2072, resolve yes, and insert a termref to restructured and an
Xref to 4.1.5.3
- ref LC-2073, resolve no, we are not aware of any satisfactory
heuristics, but understand that CT Proxy vendors will need to adopt
heuristics of some kind so we have no choice but to leave it open
Reminder: please prepare the draft responses on comments for which we
resolved no. Thanks!
See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0051.html
Francois.
04 Nov 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0066.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Francois, tomhume, SeanP, jo, rob, Bryan(IRC)
Regrets
AndrewS
Chair
francois
Scribe
Jo
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Where we are
2. [6]LC-2038 - is it a list of Best Practices? Be explicit it
that's the case
3. [7]LC-2049 - forbid the alteration of the request when the
URI follows some mobile pattern (*.mobi, wap.*, ...)
4. [8]LC-2053 - Classes of devices
5. [9]LC-2072 - what is a restructured desktop experience?
6. [10]LC-2073 - heuristics and web sites
7. [11]LC-2040 - X-Device-* should be in an Internet Draft
8. [12]Next week's call
9. [13]Discussions on WMLProgramming
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Where we are
fd: we spent a whole day on CT during the F2F which was really
useful
<francois> [15]F2F day 1 on CT
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html
fd: took quite a few resolutions. Any questions on that?
... addressing the LC comments showed that there was some kind of
misunderstanding between what people think the spec is about and
what it actually is about, so we need to focus more on what be
enforced or made normative
... if we can end up with a small text then we will have done our
job
... OK?
jo: well some of the non normative things add value, but in general
"I don't disagree (TM)"
seanp: I thought that we were going to have normative and
informative parts, rather than trying to reduce it to just being
normative
fd: yes, well that's basically what I mean, but we shouldn't mix
normative and informative parts
... we should be as clear as possible
... by having a clean structure
... next step is for Jo to slave away night and day to update the
document
... need to look at comments where we resolved "no" as the others
will basically be a reference to the updated draft
... I sent something out on this assigning people to comments to
draft the responses
seanp: should we update in tracker or send to the list
fd: update the tracker, if you are OK with that
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to ask if Tom has access to LC Tracker?
fd: then update the mailing list when you have done that
<francois> [16]Last Call tracker
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
<tomhume> "yes!"
<Bryan> Hi, FYI I am here but chat-only today
fd: technically this is easier but must not forget working in public
... some comments on 4.1.5 were not actually talking about the
things we agreed on, and so I've listed the remaining LC comments as
the agenda for today
LC-2038 - is it a list of Best Practices? Be explicit it that's the
case
<francois> [17]LC-2038
[17]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038
jo: no this is not recommended, it's all MAY
seanp: I don't think we need to change anything, it says what we
mean, we don't claim this to be best practice?
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2038, resolve partial. Answer
"no, these are not best practices, but guidelines"
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2038, resolve partial. Answer
"no, these are not best practices, but guidelines". Don't change the
text.
<SeanP> +1
<tomhume> +1
<rob> +1
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: ref LC-2038, resolve partial. Answer "no, these are not
best practices, but guidelines". Don't change the text.
LC-2049 - forbid the alteration of the request when the URI follows
some mobile pattern (*.mobi, wap.*, ...)
<francois> [18]LC-2049
[18]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2049 resolve no, URI patterns can never
be more than a heuristic
<SeanP> +1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2049 resolve no, URI patterns can never
be more than a heuristic, but we will move the list of examples to a
non normative appendix
<rob> +1
rob: as jo just says, you may get moved around between URIs so it's
not so much what you do with the request it's more what you do with
the response
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
<tomhume> +1
rob: less to do with what you do with the UA on the request path
RESOLUTION: ref LC-2049 resolve no, URI patterns can never be more
than a heuristic, but we will move the list of examples to a non
normative appendix
LC-2053 - Classes of devices
fd: notes that the contributor of these comments has been invited to
join the group as an invited expert, because of the value of his
contributions, and he has now agreed but the process of his joining
has not yet completed
<francois> [19]LC-2053
[19]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053
<dom> [his invitation is at the last step, now, fwiw]
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to suggest that for the same reason as the
previous one, the intention of content can't be unambiguously
inferred from a URI
jo: suggest that we don't fully understand this and wait for Eduardo
to be on a call so we can ask what he means
LC-2072 - what is a restructured desktop experience?
<francois> [20]LC-2072
[20]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072
fd: what is a restructured desktop experience?
jo: well we don't mean that it's a desktop that has a chain saw
taken to it
seanp: I think the problem is that we define this after where this
reference is
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2072, resolve yes, and insert a termref
to restructured and an Xref to 4.1.5.3
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: ref LC-2072, resolve yes, and insert a termref to
restructured and an Xref to 4.1.5.3
LC-2073 - heuristics and web sites
<francois> [21]LC-2073
[21]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073
fd: MNott is asking us to provide the undefined heuristics which we
don't want to do
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2072, resolve no, we are not aware of
any recommended heuristics, but understand that CT Proxy vendors
will need to adopt heuristics of some kind so we have no choice but
to leave it open
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2072, resolve no, we are not aware of
any satisfactory heuristics, but understand that CT Proxy vendors
will need to adopt heuristics of some kind so we have no choice but
to leave it open
+1
<tomhume> +1
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2073, resolve no, we are not aware of any
satisfactory heuristics, but understand that CT Proxy vendors will
need to adopt heuristics of some kind so we have no choice but to
leave it open
LC-2040 - X-Device-* should be in an Internet Draft
<francois> [22]LC-2040
[22]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040
jo: I think it's right to say that if we say MUST then maybe its
right to say we are changing the protocol, so if we say SHOULD
instead then that would be OK, given that our conformance statement
requirements are that you have to say why you don't conform to a
SHOULD if you dont
francois: echoes what jo just said
seanp: I thought we already checked with the IETF and they said it
would take a long time and it wasn't really worth doing
fd: that was about extensions to Cache-Control
... this is a bit different in that we are allowed to add headers
with X- but putting a MUST here is defining an extension of the
protocol
... but equally I think that if we take the MUST out then we will be
criticised by the other side
<scribe> ACTION: daoust to ask [someone] about adding IETF headers
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-879 - Ask [someone] about adding IETF
headers [on François Daoust - due 2008-11-11].
jo: doesn't have to be in a standard to be best practice
fd: er, humm, doh, er
<SeanP> It's a "de facto" guideline
fd: there is one other pending best practice, plus we can postpone
discussion of issues raised by eduardo, till he joins the group
Next week's call
[discussion of Remembrance day celebrations]
[call will go ahead]
Discussions on WMLProgramming
tom: a) legal advice, dealt with
<francois> [24]Tom's collection of comments
[24]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0000.html
tom: b) ROBOTS.TXT like thing, seems to be dealt with by POWDER but
Eduardo had comments on that
... c) the Via header, requiring the presence of the URI
... d) SOAP etc. dealt with under 4.13
... e) non-ability of people to alter headers
... mark content as Mobile using DOCTYPE
... not exactly fool proof
fd: is there anything we should reconsider
tom: would be good to understand more about POWDER
jo: didn't we say that you can use META HTTP-EQUIV cache-control:
no-transform
fd: well yes we did
seanp: there was a resolution that the HTTP equiv should be
consulted if the relevant HTTP header not present
fd: so back to POWDER
... it's a "bit of a semantic thing" which could eventually replace
the good ole ROBOTS
... in the past we thought that it could be used by Content
Providers to advertise their position on CT
... but POWDER doesn't exist yet and also we'd need to define a
vocabulary and that would be hard, take a lot of time and be out of
scope
... but we have put it in the Scope for Future Work appendix
... and it would be "cool", also could be a way of CT proxies
advertising their capabilities to Content Providers
tom: so our position is that it's not feasible now, but will be
feasible in the future once POWDER is defined and we have a vocab
fd: yes, that's basically it, a vocabulary needs to be defined
though
... seems like a Well Known Location is not considered good practice
tom: can we kick off work on a vocab?
fd: the semantics can be worked on independently of the syntax of
POWDER being agreed
... so someone somewhere can start work on this
... but it is not all that easy to define just a simple vocab e.g.
the DDR Core Vocab
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to ask [someone] about adding IETF headers
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 17:22:18 UTC