- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:14:31 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html
... and pasted as text below.
No call next week, meaning next call is on 25 November 2008.
Please use the list to send comments on the new draft for discussion.
I'll try to gather those that need to be actioned afterwards.
Resolutions taken during the call
-----
On the Content-Location header:
- No need to mention Content-Location header
On OMA STI:
- ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our document but may have
interest for a general transformation vocab
On Character encoding:
- On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited it and we
still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid bugs" when
transforming between character encoding (which we don't intend to say)
but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so that character encoding is
specifically referred to
- do not discuss alteration of request body in respect of character encoding
[ Note that we had indeed resolved something similar to the end of the
first resolution on 30 September 2008:
- On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes
partial" to LC-2023
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-minutes.html#item05 ]
Francois.
11 Nov 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0018.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
francois, tomhume, rob, SeanP, Eduardo, jo
Regrets
Chair
francois
Scribe
rob
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Welcome to Eduardo Casais
2. [6]New Draft
3. [7]Content-Location
4. [8]OMA Standard Transcoding Interface
5. [9]Draft responses to "resolved no" comments
6. [10]LC-2053 - classes of devices
7. [11]Unclear form encoding must be preserved for the server
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Welcome to Eduardo Casais
francois: Welcome Eduardo Casais
... already known to us from a host of useful comments on the
mailing-list
[round of introductions]
Eduardo: I work for a small mobile content developer in Switzerland,
previously worked for Nokia where I was involved in many things
including UA-Prof
<francois> [13]New draft of CT
[13]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107
New Draft
jo: I could talk at length on this!
<francois> [14]Jo's changelog and discussion
[14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0017.html
jo: I hope it includes all the resolutions so far
... Hope to gather together anything missing (eg rewriting HTTPS
links holes) in the next 2-3 days
... considerable polish is required but would be a waste of time
until the substance is stable, which may take another draft
... it will be useful if everyone gives this draft a deep review
... santiy-check and make sure it says what we agreed
... check for consistency
... tighten the nuts and bolts (eg any shoulds that could be musts?)
... and check if clarity can be improved
francois: everyone should send comments to the mailing-list
... just like Eduardo has been doing
Content-Location
francois: introduced by Rob on the mailing-list.
rob: Yes. Don't think there is anything to do, but comes from a long
discussion, so I wanted to check whether there was a reason not to
include a Content-Location header in the response passed downstream
to the phone
jo: do we need to propose text around this?
francois: Rob's said he doesn't think there is anything to propose
here
Eduardo: RFC says the value of Content-Location also defines the
base URI of the entity
francois: that's also one of my fears
... and <link> is more correct
rob: I just wanted to see if anyone has a need for this at all
... and so far I've heard no reason to want it
francois: could be a way to pass the canonical URI to the client for
bookmarking
rob: I tried that on a real phone and it doesn't work
francois: correct, no-one uses that right now
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No need to mention Content-Location header
francois: does anyone want us to go to TAG to check?
<francois> +1
<tomhume> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: No need to mention Content-Location header
OMA Standard Transcoding Interface
francois: no overlap at the moment between OMA doc and our doc
... OMA doc is an interface for a server, not for a proxy
... so there is no incompatibility and no overlap
... but there is some media-transcoding vocab defined that could be
useful in future work
jo: can we resolve LC-2051 now then?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our
document but may have interest for a general transformation vocab
+1
<tomhume> +1
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
<jo> +1
RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our document but
may have interest for a general transformation vocab
<francois> Close ACTION-868
<trackbot> ACTION-868 Review OMA STI to see if there's something
relevant for CT for LC-2051 closed
Draft responses to "resolved no" comments
francois: reminder to everyone to propose responses back to
contributors ASAP
LC-2053 - classes of devices
<francois> [15]LC-2053
[15]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053
francois: postponed LC-2053 response recently
... about classes of device
... and section 4.1.5 of the old draft
<francois> [16]LC-2053
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053
<francois>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidel
ines-20080801/2053
[17]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053
jo: Eduardo can you please clarify what you want from LC-2053
<jo> ACTION: casais to review LC-2053 and clarify to group [recorded
in [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-880 - Review LC-2053 and clarify to group
[on Eduardo Casais - due 2008-11-18].
Unclear form encoding must be preserved for the server
francois: again triggered by one of Eduardo's comments
... current wording is unclear about if a CT-proxy must roll-back
encoding changes made in responses when a form is submitted
jo: which exceptions are we talking about?
francois: section 4.1.5
<francois> [19]Alteration of HTTP Header Values
[19]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-altering-header-values
francois: the previous draft talked about Content-Encoding changes
in the body, this has been removed
jo: we previously talked about transforming request bodies but
decided we didn't add much (if anything) to the requirements that
already exist
... do we have anything to say on something happening today that we
want to stop happening?
Eduardo: the mowser transcoder doesn't handle Character-Encoding
properly
... eg UTF-8 characters end up as Latin-1
jo: mowser hasn't been updated for a while and has lots of bugs,
this is a known bug
Eduardo: Vodafone ES and PT transcoders don't handle numerical
entities well
jo: but these are clear bugs, not debatable ambiguities
... so avoiding carelessness or error is not part of our
specification
francois: we talked about adding Encoding to the appendix E list
... as merely a list of heuristics
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding so we
have decided to leave it
francois: was written as "recoded or restructured"
jo: I remember something about this but could not find a resolution
to follow when writing the latest draft
... so here is one:
... I don't think we need to talk about transforming the encoding of
a request body
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding and
to note that this is an example of a heuristic that the proxy may
take into account when transforming content if it thinks that the
encoding provided may mis-operate when presented on the client
francois: the only case is when the encoding of the response has
been changed and the client is then submitting a form from that
response
Eduardo: this isn't a heuristic, it's a rule
rob: yes, the rule is if you change Character-Encoding in one
direction (server-to-phone) you have to change it in the other
direction (phone-to-server) as well
Jo: we're not in the business of specifying how to transform images,
HTML etc, so we don't need to specify this either
... this is not our job to write a "building transcoders for
dummies" book
francois: I second that point, we don't need to expand on that in
the Guidelines
jo: do we want to add this to 4.2.8.1? Because it's not a heuristic
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding
(which we don't intend to say) and add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so
that character encoding is specifically referred to
+1
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
<tomhume> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we
have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other
than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding
(which we don't intend to say) but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so
that character encoding is specifically referred to
RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited
it and we still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid
bugs" when transforming between character encoding (which we don't
intend to say) but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so that character
encoding is specifically referred to
<jo> ACTION: jo to enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding
character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc.
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-881 - Enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref
adding character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions
etc. [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-11-18].
Eduardo: do we need to point out the requirements of what the server
expects?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: do not discuss alteration of request body
in respect of character encoding
francois: do we need to mention that altering the request-body isn't
envisaged except "rolling back" changes like Character-Encoding?
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
<tomhume> +1
rob: there are a few other changes that need rolling back too - for
example pasting back together inputs that got split amongst
sub-pages
+1
RESOLUTION: do not discuss alteration of request body in respect of
character encoding
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: casais to review LC-2053 and clarify to group
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding
character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc.
[recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 17:15:08 UTC