- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:17:36 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
The minutes of today's call are at [1] and as text below;
Jo
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
02 Sep 2008
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Bryan_Sullivan, HGerlach, Pontus, SeanP, jo, rob_finean
Regrets
Francois
Chair
Jo
Scribe
rob
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Comments on Last Call of CT Guidelines
2. [6]LC-2043
3. [7]LC-2025
4. [8]LC-2065
5. [9]LC-2018
6. [10]LC-2066
7. [11]LC-2050
8. [12]LC-2003
9. [13]LC-2034
10. [14]AOB
* [15]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 02 September 2008
<hgerlach> +1
<jo> scribe: rob
<jo> [16]LC Comment Tracker
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
Comments on Last Call of CT Guidelines
Jo: Starting at LC-2043
LC-2043
jo: Mark Nottingham makes a comment similar to LC-2043
... saying decide if this is Guidelines or Protocol - can't be both
SeanP: agrees with Jo's sentiments that most of the document is
guidelines
... we're echoing common practise rather than specifying a protocol
Bryan: but mentioning common practise is kind of recommending it as
a protocol
jo: I could take this back to the comments list ...
<jo> ACTION: Jo to get back on LC-2043 and simialr pointing out what
we are trying to achieve and asking for clarification [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-828 - Get back on LC-2043 and simialr
pointing out what we are trying to achieve and asking for
clarification [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-09].
jo: but I think guidelines are as far as we want to go with this
document - definitely not a protocol definition
LC-2025
hgerlach: we call the document guidelines but as LC-2025 says, there
is little guidance for Eduardo
<jo> ACTION: HGerlach to detail his thoughts arising from discussion
of LC-2025 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-829 - Detail his thoughts arising from
discussion of LC-2025 [on Heiko Gerlach - due 2008-09-09].
jo: point of the document is not to prevent egregious behaviour but
to provide a framework so the parties can understand and control
what happens
<hgerlach> will we agree the responses before sending it out?
Bryan: this is a summary comment, there are more comments later that
define specifics
SeanP: would it be easier to hit the specific comments 1st?
jo: maybe, but good to see them in tracker's order in overview
... skipping LC-2075
<jo>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidel
ines-20080801/
[19]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
LC-2065
<jo> [20]LC-2065
[20]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065
Jo: I did respond to Dennis on this informally
Bryan: I'd like to review Jo's response and follow up
<jo> ACTION: Bryan to review correspondence with Dennis cf LC-2065
and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a proposed
response to Dennis [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-830 - Review correspondence with Dennis cf
LC-2065 and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a
proposed response to Dennis [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-09-09].
Bryan: I'll follow up on the public list
LC-2018
<jo> [22]LC-2018
[22]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018
jo: This is about the document's title
SeanP: there is a good point here, but I still don't know what to
change the title to!
Bryan: we'd call this "Content Adaptation" rather than "Content
Transformation"
... but capturing the fact that you are adapting for a limited
browser might be useful in the title
jo: but "Content Adaptation" is commonly used as an origin-server
technology already
<jo> Content Transformation by Proxies?
<SeanP> HTTP proxies?
hgerlach: we don't change the content, we change the layout
... not convinced we need to change the title
<hgerlach> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the title of the document to:
Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies: Guidelines
<hgerlach> how about transducer instead???
<SeanP> How about "Guidelines for Content Transformation by HTTP
Proxies?
jo: given importance of "no-transform", transformation must be the
right word
Bryan: is the word Guidelines essential?
jo: maybe not
<hgerlach> How about orientation guide?
SeanP: move Guidelines to a subtitle like "Guidelines for content
providers, network operators and ..."
<jo> ACTION: SeanP to continue discussion of the title on the list
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SeanP
<jo> ACTION: Patterson to continue discussion of the title on the
list [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-831 - Continue discussion of the title on
the list [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-09-09].
LC-2066
<SeanP> Another suggestion: Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies:
Guidelines for CT Operators and Content Providers
<jo> (assigned to Jo)
jo: I'll respond to this
LC-2050
jo: we do distinguish between these but don't make much use of the
definitions
... and may be difficult to define it formally
SeanP: possibility we could remove them? It's tricky to define
formally
jo: would anybody like to see what the impact of removing the
definitions is?
SeanP: yes, I'll do that
<jo> ACTION: Patterson to look at what the impact on the document
would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-832 - Look at what the impact on the
document would be if we removed the definitions referred to in
LC-2050 [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-09-09].
LC-2003
Bryan: in considering language around "user-control" I'll wait until
Jo responds to LC-2003 before elaborating on this
<jo> ACTION: Jo to propose text against LC-2003 referring to the
TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal
operation [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-833 - Propose text against LC-2003
referring to the TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a
Proxy's internal operation [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-09].
LC-2034
<hgerlach> what is left????
jo: does anyone have particular views?
... what's left are OPTIONS and random extensions like WebDAV
methods
<SeanP> OPTIONS, CONNECT, TRACE, DELETE
rob: we don't do anything to other methods
<jo> ACTION: Rob to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Rob
<jo> ACTION: Finean to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-834 - Draft a response to LC-2034 noting
that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [on
Robert Finean - due 2008-09-09].
AOB
jo: I'll chat with Francois when he's back about dividing the
comments up - because we've made good progress today but finishing
will take a long time at this rate
<hgerlach> OK, bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Bryan to review correspondence with Dennis cf LC-2065
and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a proposed
response to Dennis [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Finean to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: HGerlach to detail his thoughts arising from
discussion of LC-2025 [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to get back on LC-2043 and simialr pointing out
what we are trying to achieve and asking for clarification [recorded
in [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to propose text against LC-2003 referring to the
TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal
operation [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Patterson to continue discussion of the title on the
list [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Patterson to look at what the impact on the document
would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Rob to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the
scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: SeanP to continue discussion of the title on the list
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version 1.133
([39]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/09/02 15:11:17 $
_________________________________________________________
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 15:18:23 UTC