- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:12:56 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Here is the agenda.
Many topics, but most of them should hopefully take less time to review
than it took me to write them down in the agenda.
Let's try to start on time!
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: none
Date: 2008-11-25T1500Z 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/081107
1. ISSUE-284: W3C mobile addressing standards
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Nov/0044.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-altering-header-values
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add some text in 4.1.5 to state that inferring that
a desktop User-Agent is needed in the absence of any indication (e.g.
URI patterns) is contrary to the guidelines
2. User experience
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0046.html
- algorithm proposed to precise what "improving the user experience" may
mean from a technological point of view based on HTTP headers, UAProf,
and DDR, and priorities among capabilities. Cannot and does not attempt
to cover everything. Points of disagreement on the details
- out of scope since it describes the internal operation of a CT proxy.
- agreed?
3. Capability negotiation on the client side
-----
Thread:
same as above
- not mentioned in Scope for Future Work
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: add a reference to CC/PP in Scope for Future Work
as a possible future way to communicate between a mobile device and a
CT-proxy
4. "Dry" statements for Alteration of Response and LC-2053 on Classes of
Devices (4.2.8.1)
-----
Thread:
same as above and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0051.html
Last Call comment:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-alteration-of-response
- Normative statements must be testable.
- The following two statements are not:
* "A proxy SHOULD strive for the best possible user experience that
the user agent supports"... not good.
* "It SHOULD only alter the format, layout, dimensions etc. to match
the specific capabilities of the user agent"... what are we trying to say?
- Reword along the lines of "exploit the capabilities of the device"
with a link to MWBP?
... and close ACTION-880 on Eduardo about this.
5. LC-2023 - note instead of alteration of the list (4.2.8.1)
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0044.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-alteration-of-response
- fine with the note?
... and close ACTION-881 on Jo
6. Validation against formal published grammar (4.2.8.1)
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0037.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-alteration-of-response
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. Validation against formal published grammar,
two guidelines "The altered content MUST be well-formed (if it's
XML-based)" and "The altered content SHOULD validate to an appropriate
published formal grammar"
7. LC-2050 - Restructuring, recoding, optimizing
-----
Jo's changelog at:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2050
- we had resolved to mention we are only talking about restructuring.
- while preparing the new draft, Jo thought it did not make sense anymore.
- agreed?
... and close old ACTION-832 on Sean
8. Alteration of header fields (4.1.5)
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-altering-header-values
- "Proxies SHOULD NOT change headers other than User-Agent and
Accept(-*) headers[...]"
... inconsistent with 4.1.6 since the CT proxy is already asked to add
X-Forwarded-For and Via headers and to *change* them (more specifically,
to complete their values) if they are already defined.
- any other header that could be changed by a "regular" proxy?
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. alteration of header fields, change the
statement to read "Proxies SHOULD NOT change headers other than
User-Agent and Accept(-*) headers, and X-Forwarded-For and Via as noted
under 4.1.6 Additional HTTP Headers if already present, and MUST NOT
delete headers.
... and close ACTION-843 on Jo
9. Testing
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0024.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-testing
- action someone to propose some text to clarify the intent?
10. Cached responses and pagination
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0023.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-serving-cached-responses
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: replace SHOULD by MUST in "and [proxies] SHOULD
provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy"
(should we resolve that, any reason not to also replace the previous
SHOULD in "[proxies] SHOULD notify the user that this is the case"?)
11. LC-2040 - On properly defining the X-Device-* headers
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0062.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-original-headers
Last Call comment:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040
- Stick to "existing practice" or define the header appropriately?
- I note we also reference the X-Forwarded-For header.
... and close ACTION-879 on Francois.
12. Test the effect of HEAD Requests on Various Servers
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0059.html
Doc:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-applicable-HTTP-mehtods
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No identified problem associated with switching a
HEAD request to a GET request, other than the fact that server
statistics are impacted. No text change in 4.1.1 on that regard.
... and close ACTION-710 on Francois.
13. LC-2097 - Review of OPES work
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0045.html
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref-2097 resolve yes and add a section under 1.3
scope noting that OPES RFC 3238 is relevant to this work and has been
reviewed.
14. WML and the guidelines
-----
Threads:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0068.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0071.html
- Amend the text on http-equiv not to mention specifically *HTML* content?
- Proxies should treat WML content as though a "no-transform" directive
was present?
- Do we need to further precise that WAP gateways functionalities are
still allowed?
15. HTTPS links rewriting
-----
Threads:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0063.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0065.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008OctDec/0007.html
[I haven't had time to review these threads thoroughly yet]
... and close ACTION-860, ACTION-864 on Jo
... and close ACTION-859 on Francois
16. Editorial comments from Eduardo
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html
- action Jo to incorporate the editorial remarks in next version of the
draft?
17. Review actions
-----
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
18. AOB
-----
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 17:58:34 UTC