- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:32:31 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi guys,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as pasted below.
Resolutions taken on mobileOK Basic:
- Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that
the value MUST start with a product token set-to W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0
and a comment set to (see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
... with an action on Jo to confirm the exact wording on list
- Pending Jo's change about user-agent, the group agrees to publish this
document as a Last Call Working Draft, with a comments period of 3
weeks, with a proposal to move directly to PR if possible
Resolution taken on Content Transformation Guidelines:
- CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in
accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it
normative separately
Francois
05 Jun 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0005.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
DKA, Dom, Francois, Kai_Dietrich, SeanP, jeffs, jo, manrique,
miguel
Regrets
AlanC, Kemp, AdamC, Yeliz, DRooks, Murari, Abel, EdM,
MartinJ, rob, Scott, Bryan
Chair
DKA
Scribe
miguel, dom, francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Accesibility Document Status
2. [6]MobileOk
3. [7]BP 2.0
4. [8]F2F Agenda Discussion
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Accesibility Document Status
dka: any comments?
MobileOk
dka: new editors draft
<francois> [10]new mobileOK draft
[10]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080602
jo: document nearly completed
... it will be easy change User-Agent change to take care
extensibility
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Wording ref "exactly" should be modified
under discussion of the User Agent header to allow implementations
that are crawlers to add additional stuff identifying themselves
<dom> [I agree with francois this needs clarification]
francois: wondering about extending User Agent string
<dom> [I think we should allow for additional product tokens,
additional comments]
<dom> [but making sure they first product token is the one set by
the spec]
francois: discussing about additional comments should be at the
beggining or ending of User Agent
<dom>
[11]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.43
[11] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.43
<dom> User-Agent = "User-Agent" ":" 1*( product | comment )
<dom> [12]Syntax for Product tokens
[12] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.8
<dom> [13]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec2.html#sec2
[13] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec2.html#sec2
<dom> Comments can be included in some HTTP header fields by
surrounding the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only
allowed in fields containing "comment" as part of their field value
definition. In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of
the field value.
<dom> comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
<dom> ctext = <any TEXT excluding "(" and ")">
<dom> quoted-pair = "\" CHAR
[dom, jo and francois arguing about the number of comments that
could go in the user agent string]
<dom> The first product token should be "W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0"
<Bob_Cratchett> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User
Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with
a product token containing W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment
containing (see ... yada yada)
<dom> +1
<jeffs> +1
<dom> yada yada = [14]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc
[14] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc
+1
<DKA> +1
<Kai> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User Agent string in
MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token
set-to W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment set to (see
[15]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
[15] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK
Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token set-to
W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment set to (see
[16]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
[16] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
<jo> ACTION: Jo to confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change
to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of
pednatry for the group [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-767 - Confirm the EXACT wording of the
proposed change to the user agent header on list to satisfy the
growing needs of pedantry for the group [on Jo Rabin - due
2008-06-12].
<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending Jo's change about user-agent, the
group agrees to publish this document as a Last Call Working Draft,
with a comments period of 3 weeks, with a proposal to move directly
to PR if possible
RESOLUTION: Pending Jo's change about user-agent, the group agrees
to publish this document as a Last Call Working Draft, with a
comments period of 3 weeks, with a proposal to move directly to PR
if possible
<DKA> +1
<jeffs> +1
<dom> +1
BP 2.0
DKA: anything to discuss?
... in the process of making an input document. it'll be ready for
next call
<DKA> [18]http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd3jk8v_114tkbg6kgj
[18] http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd3jk8v_114tkbg6kgj
F2F Agenda Discussion
<francois> [Re. CT: current schedule is to present a candidate draft
for Last Call to the main body of the working group next week, to
hopefully decide to publish the doc as Last Call during the F2F in
Sophia]
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder if the editors of BP2 will be
there?
<francois> [19]registration results
[19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/results
<dom> [Adam is planning on attending]
Kai: quick note on the status of mobileOK Pro
... we have completed all the tests
... the task force has been asked to review the document
... will submit the document to the group as a whole shortly
DKA: will that be on time for the F2F?
Kai: probably, yes
DKA: so I think we should go through it at the F2F
... so that we can give actions, decide its next steps, Rec-track or
not
Kai: the document might be better served if we receive detailed
feedback before the f2f
... and keep a high level discussion at the F2F meeting
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that the document has not received
any proper attention in the body of the group
Jo: it's good that TF can focus on specific items, but let's note
that the group hasn't considered the document in sufficient details
... I think it would be wishful thinking that people will get into
the details of the spec before the f2f
... esp. as we'll ask people to look at the CT guidelines in more
details for a LC
... so I think it might worth going through the document in some
details during the F2F
... and we certainly need to discuss its future
DKA: yeah, I think that would be useful
... it was very useful for the CT document back in Seoul
... I'll take this as input to update the agenda
... is there any other logistical or process related issue we need
to discuss in the F2F?
Kai: What about POWDER and its connection to mobileOK?
DKA: will we have the right people there to discuss this? I don't
think PhilA is attending
Jo: No, he isn't
Kai: I can give whatever information I have at the F2F if that helps
the group decides
DKA: I think it's worthwhile to put it on the agenda as
informational
... but probably too early to make a decision
... (on whether we want to adopt it for mobileOK)
francois: we still need to address the normative vs informative
status of the CT guidelines
... SeanP supported the idea of making the document normative
... which would require a rechartering
DKA: good point, worth discussion indeed
... I would prefer a normative document as well
... I'll put on the agenda
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that the normative language has been
removed from the next draft ...
DKA: We can put this in the context of the charter extension
Jo: I've removed the "normative status" language from the doc
... my preference would be that we issue the next LCWD independently
of the resolution of that question
francois: yeah, whatever the decision we make, there is no way we
can publish the LCWD as normative in the next month
Jo: indeed
... as we know, we can have as many LC as we like
... if we agree to recharter, we can publish a 2nd LC
[note that the change of status wouldn't actually require a new LC,
I believe]
<jeffs> if not charter for that now, don't do that now
dom: my understanding is that the only requirement is that there be
at least 150 days between the first time the document is published
as normative and its publication as Proposed Rec
DKA: if there are companies that have IPR that are associated with
content transformation that might be attached with the guidelines
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non
normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll
review whether to make it normative separately
<jeffs> understands now... lawyers
DKA: if the document is normative, then the patents held by
companies in the group needs to license on an RF-basis, right?
<Zakim> Kai_, you wanted to say that status of being normative does
not change anything about existing patents
RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call
WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to
make it normative separately
<jo> {Proposed text for CT Guidelines: <div2 id="sec-rfc2119">
<jo> <head>Interpretation of RFC 2119 Key Words</head>
<jo> <p>This document is not normative <phrase role="ednote">Need
link to definition</phrase> and it is inappropriate to claim
conformance to it. Implementors of this Recommendation who wish to
promote effective inter operability of Web content will, however,
interpret the key words
<jo> <rfc2119>must</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>must not</rfc2119>,
<jo> <rfc2119>required</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>shall</rfc2119>,
<rfc2119>shall
<jo> not</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>should</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>should
not</rfc2119>,
<jo> <rfc2119>recommended</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>may</rfc2119>, and
<jo> <rfc2119>optional </rfc2119>in this Recommendation as
<jo> described in <bibref ref="ref-rfc-2119"/> .</p>
<jo> </div2>
dom: big difference is that in the informative case, participants
are only required to disclose patents of others they know about
... whereas in the normative case, any undisclosed patent falls
under the RF policy
SeanP: Reason to support "normative" was for legitimacy reasons, not
really for patent issues. If that is not the case, then we're not
strongly supporting the normative change.
DKA: OK, we'll have the discussion during the F2F
<manrique> see you
DKA: Session adjourned, thanks everybody
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change
to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of
pednatry for the group [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 15:33:05 UTC