- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:49:43 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Hi guys and happy new year!
Here is the agenda for tomorrow's CT call.
This could be the last CT-only call, see Topic 4. below.
-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: none
Date: 2008-01-06T1500Z 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. Mandating respect of some heuristics
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0080.html
- should a mobile CT proxy be allowed to transform content that was
developed with mobile in mind?
- forbid restructuring and recoding in the cases mentioned by Dom?
- allow exceptions to the rules as proposed by Eduardo?
- add an equivalent to section 4.1.5.4 on responses?
2. 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
- Mostly merged with previous topic
- Amend the text on http-equiv not to mention *HTML* content specifically?
3. 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
- Last discussion showed support for not defining blank new HTTP
headers, not to add to the already existing mess.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: stick to X-Device-* header fields names on the
ground that there is already a number of "existing" X- HTTP header
fields for the same purpose, and that adding yet other "cleaner" ones
would only create confusion.
4. Merging with the main body of the Working Group
-----
Announcement (member-only link):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Dec/0034.html
Questionnaire:
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-mergingcalls/
- idea is to have only one call for CT and the main body of BPWG.
- date/time of the merged conference is up to vote.
- merged call could start next week.
5. On the guidelines
-----
Long thread starting at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Dec/0036.html
- summary?
6. Cache-Control extension mechanisms
-----
Thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0088.html
- a long time ago, we resolved not to go down that path.
- any reason to reconsider our decision?
7. AOB
-----
Francois.
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 10:50:17 UTC