W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > June 2009

[minutes] Tuesday 16 June 2009 Teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:59:18 +0200
Message-ID: <4A37C156.3000401@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as text below.


Resolutions taken on the mobileOK Scheme and License:
- Adopt above text for clarification that advanced experiences for non 
DDC devices do not disqualify sites from achieving mobileOK, and indeed 
this is what we'd like them to do
... where "above text" is actually:
  [ The DDC is thus not a target to aspire to, it merely sets a base 
line below which content providers do not need to provide their content. 
It is Best Practice [CAPABILITIES][2] for content providers, as well as 
targetting DDC level devices, also to provide experiences for more 
advanced mobile devices that have capabilities not supported by the DDC. ]

- Modulo the change RESOLVED above, and edit of the link to the mobileOK 
License, the BPWG requests publication of mobileOK Scheme 1.0 as a 
Working Group Note

- BPWG requests publication of the mobileOK License and thanks Rigo for 
his work on it


Resolution taken about the group's charter extension:
- The BPWG requests a 6 month extension to allow it to complete its work


Actions and issues were reviewed and closed appropriately.

Francois.


-----
16 Jun 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0042.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           jo, Francois, brucel, EdC, miguel, SeanP, chaals

    Regrets
           kai, achuter, yeliz, sangwhan, manrique, abel, nacho, tom,
           adam, phila, dka

    Chair
           Jo

    Scribe
           SeanP, francois

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Update on MWABP
          2. [6]Update on BP 1.5
          3. [7]mobileOK Scheme 1.0
          4. [8]CT Draft 1r
          5. [9]ISSUE-285
          6. [10]ISSUE-295
          7. [11]ISSUE-298
          8. [12]ACTION-730
          9. [13]ACTION-892
         10. [14]ACTION-925
         11. [15]ACTION-926
         12. [16]ACTION-927
         13. [17]ACTION-928
         14. [18]ACTION-930
         15. [19]ACTION-931
         16. [20]ACTION-932
         17. [21]ACTION-933
         18. [22]ACTION-934
         19. [23]ACTION-956
         20. [24]ACTION-969
         21. [25]AOB
      * [26]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Update on MWABP

    <jo> [27]BP2 Status Update

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0041.html

    Jo: Adam sends his regrets and sends a status update.

Update on BP 1.5

    <jo> [28]Update from Kai

      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2009Jun/0017.html

    Jo: Update from Kai will be pasted into IRC.
    ... Kai sends his regrets, is making progress, and there will be
    another editor's call.

mobileOK Scheme 1.0

    Jo: Comments are on the latest draft.

    <jo> [29]Latest Draft mobileOK Scheme 1.0

      [29] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090609.html

    Jo: Late breaking proposed changes to the draft.

    <jo> [30]Latest Proposed Change in response to Chaals's and others
    problems with the last draft wording

      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0054.html

    Jo: I think we've got agreement on that.
    ... We have agreement on the proposed text.

    <jo> Latest Proposed Text: " The DDC is thus not a target to aspire
    to, it merely sets a base line below which content providers do not
    need to provide their content. It is Best Practice
    [CAPABILITIES][$1\47] for content providers, as well as targetting
    DDC level devices, also to provide experiences for more advanced
    mobile devices that have capabilities not supported by the DDC."

    <chaals> [I am happy with that text]

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt above text for clarification that
    advanced experiences for non DDC devices do not disqualify sites
    from achieving mobileOK, and indeed this is what we'd like them to
    do

    <EdC> +1

    <jo> +1

    <francois> +1

    <brucel> +1

    <miguel> +1

    +1

    RESOLUTION: Adopt above text for clarification that advanced
    experiences for non DDC devices do not disqualify sites from
    achieving mobileOK, and indeed this is what we'd like them to do

    Jo: Rigo has made some changes.

    <francois> [31]Rigo's changes on mobileOK License

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0061.html

    Jo: on the mobileOK license

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo the change REZOLVED above, and edit
    of the link to the mobileOK License, the BPWG requests publication
    of mobileOK Scheme 1.0 as a Working Group Note

    <francois> +1

    <jo> +1

    <miguel> +1

    <chaals> +1

    RESOLUTION: Modulo the change RESOLVED above, and edit of the link
    to the mobileOK License, the BPWG requests publication of mobileOK
    Scheme 1.0 as a Working Group Note

    Francois: Do we need more time to review the changes?

    Jo: Should we take a resolution?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG requests publication of the mobileOK
    License and thanks Rigo for his work on it

    <jo> +1

    <francois> +1

    Francois: Good idea.

    <miguel> +1

    RESOLUTION: BPWG requests publication of the mobileOK License and
    thanks Rigo for his work on it

    Jo: We are now done with mobileOK.

CT Draft 1r

    <francois> [32]latest CT draft

      [32] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607

    <jo> [33]Current CT Draft 1r

      [33] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/guidelines/latest

    Jo: A bunch of actions and issues need tidying up.
    ... some new comments on the mailing list.

    <jo> [34]Note from Francois

      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.html

    Jo: Lets start with the note from Francois.

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to add Accept-Language ot the other than list in
    4.1.5 [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-973 - Add Accept-Language ot the other
    than list in 4.1.5 [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23].

    Jo: X-header fields still not completetly defined in document.
    ... That is because I only applied changes up the last F2F.

    Francois: The idea is to have the explicit list of new header fields
    and a reference to the production rules.
    ... So we can bang on IANA's door to define the header fields
    properly.

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to enact the resolution of 28th April ref x-device
    cf
    [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.htm
    l [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

      [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-974 - Enact the resolution of 28th April
    ref x-device cf
    [38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.htm
    l [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23].

      [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.html

    <jo> [39]Note from Eduardo on ISSUEs

      [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0046.html

    Jo: I believe that these issues are going to be discussed on this
    call.
    ... (issues 285, 295, 298)
    ... All of those should appear in the list unresolved issues.
    ... Next up is an email from Sean Patterson.

    <francois> [40]Notes from Sean Patterson

      [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html

    <jo> [41]Email from Sean Patterson about various lacunae in the
    current draft

      [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html

    <francois> Scribe: francois

    jo: going through your comments Sean. Point 1 will go.
    ... Point 2. Repeated twice. Really?

    sean: in a slightly different form, yes.

    jo: oopszzz.

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to correct SeanP's point 2 [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-975 - Correct SeanP's point 2 [on Jo Rabin
    - due 2009-06-23].

    jo: point 3, pending my action to do it.
    ... Point 4. That is correct as well.

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to enact Seanp's point 4 [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-976 - Enact Seanp's point 4 [on Jo Rabin -
    due 2009-06-23].

    jo: Point 5. Adding parentheses. I'd prefer to leave it as it is.
    ... The force of the MAY would be lost between parentheses.

    sean: ok.

    jo: Point 6. You're right.

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to check and correct spelling of "XMLHttpRequest" as
    necessary [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-977 - Check and correct spelling of
    "XMLHttpRequest" as necessary [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23].

    jo: Point 7. Editorial change. OK.

    <jo> ACTION: jo to enact point 7 of seanp's email [recorded in
    [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-978 - Enact point 7 of seanp's email [on
    Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23].

    jo: Point 8. Indeed.

    <jo> ACTION: enact point 8 of Sean's email [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - enact

    <scribe> ACTION: jo to enact point 8 of Sean's email [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-979 - Enact point 8 of Sean's email [on Jo
    Rabin - due 2009-06-23].

    jo: let's just skip these editorial notes, you're right, I'll enact
    them.
    ... Point 10?

    sean: I think the feature at risk was because mobileOK scheme and
    POWDER were not ready yet.

    jo: so we can remove the feature at risk now, then?

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to remove editorial note at 4.2.9 ref mobileOK and
    add a reference to mobileOK scheme to show how it is done [recorded
    in [48]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-980 - Remove editorial note at 4.2.9 ref
    mobileOK and add a reference to mobileOK scheme to show how it is
    done [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23].

    francois: I confirm this was the reason why the feature was at risk.
    No need to keep it.

    jo: Point 11. Will do. Point 12. Will do. Point 13. We could spend
    the rest of the call on that point :)

    <brucel> +1 for using subjunctive

    jo: I'll consider it.
    ... Point 14. Will do. Point 15. As well.
    ... About your "another note". That needs clarification.

    sean: reading the text, it's not clear to me what we say.

    <EdC> I can do that.

    jo: would anybody like to pick up an action to identify all the
    places where user preferences are mentioned and come up with a
    global editorial proposal on that?

    <jo> ACTION: eduardo to reveiw text and all references to user
    preferences and make editorial suggestion on how to clarify, taking
    into account Sean's points at
    [49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.htm
    l [recorded in
    [50]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]

      [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-981 - Reveiw text and all references to
    user preferences and make editorial suggestion on how to clarify,
    taking into account Sean's points at
    [51]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.htm
    l [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-06-23].

      [51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html

    jo: anything else that we need to cover, Sean?

    sean: no.

    jo: ok, let's tackle the actions and issues.

    <SeanP> Scribe: SeanP

    <jo> [52]Remaining ISSUEs and ACTIONs on CT

      [52] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12

    <scribe> Scribenick: SeanP

ISSUE-285

    <francois> ISSUE-285?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-285 -- Does BPWG feel it can write Best Practices
    on links rewriting in the CT guidelines? Or that it cannot be a best
    practice? -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [53]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/285

      [53] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/285

    Jo: I think we're done with that.
    ... Did you have a particular point on that?

    EdC: Waiting on an action by Chaals.

    Jo: We'll close it then.

    <jo> Close ISSUE-285

    <trackbot> ISSUE-285 Does BPWG feel it can write Best Practices on
    links rewriting in the CT guidelines? Or that it cannot be a best
    practice? closed

ISSUE-295

    <jo> ISSUE-295?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-295 -- It is impossible to reconcile pragmatism and
    expediency with good practice -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [54]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/295

      [54] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/295

    Jo: Do we have anything else to say on 295?

    EdC: The issue may have been dealt with.

    Jo: I feel it is dealt with.

    <jo> close ISSUE-295

    <trackbot> ISSUE-295 It is impossible to reconcile pragmatism and
    expediency with good practice closed

ISSUE-298

    <jo> ISSUE-298?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-298 -- With reference to Eduardo's point about
    linked stylesheets,
    [55]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0011.htm
    l, we need to review in the light of an earlier decision on images
    and possibly aslo in light of a recursion problem with link rel= --
    OPEN

      [55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0011.html

    <trackbot>
    [56]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/298

      [56] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/298

    <EdC> +q

    Jo: Eduardo, can you step us through this?

    EdC: I mentioned that CSS may have external stylesheets. Those
    marked as handheld should not be transformed since they are
    explicitly mobile.
    ... We need to consider if there is a propogation of attributes to
    style sheets that include style sheets.

    <Zakim> francois, you wanted to ask how this translates in terms of
    guidelines

    EdC: if a linked stylesheet is marked as handheld, we know it is
    mobile.

    Francois: How does that translate to guidelines? We have probably
    already transformed the original HTML page. I agree with your
    reasoning, but I don't see how it can be made into a guideline.

    Jo: Eduardo, what kind of guideline, if any, were you envisioning?

    EdC: It would be in section 4.2; it would say something like
    "stylesheets that are marked as handheld would be treated in
    transparent mode"

    Jo: Doesn't it depend on if the referencing document has been
    transformed.
    ... It seems to me if you serve the referencing doc unaltered, you
    serve the referenced assets unaltered.
    ... It seems that it can be useful to optimize style sheets by
    removing whitespace, etc.

    <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say that the optimisation of
    presentation isn't like the optimization of code

    EdC: This is a similar situation to "mobile" documents.

    Chaals: Whether a stylesheet is good for handheld has nothing to do
    with how it is coded up. You could optimize it.

    Jo: My view is that this is an elaboration that we could make, but
    wouldn't add substantially to the document.

    <EdC> +q

    Francois: I share your point of view, Jo. Do we have real life
    examples where CT proxies broke the CSS but not the HTML that would
    require the guideline?

    EdC: There is a deployment where they take out the style sheet
    entirely.

    Francois: So they are changing it by removing the reference to the
    stylesheet.

    EdC: The also remove inline CSS.

    Francois: That's a problem, but isn't that already covered by the
    document?

    EdC: They still might change the style sheet in ways that aren't
    proper.

    <jo> ACTION: Eduardo to propose some specific text ref ISSUE-298
    [recorded in
    [57]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-982 - Propose some specific text ref
    ISSUE-298 [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-06-23].

    Jo: I'm finding it difficult to think of what to write for this.
    Eduardo, could you suggest some text?

    <EdC> +q

    Francois: Why did we not put anything in for images?

    EdC: There are a few image types that we put in in appendix C that
    should not be modified.

    Jo: I think that the discussion we had on images is that you
    couldn't establish a proper connection between a request for an
    image and a request for a document.

    EdC: The result is that there are only a few image types that are
    unabiguously mobile. Others could be for mobile or non-mobile.

    Jo: Let's leave issue 298 open.

    Francois: In section 4.2.9, the first bullet point talks about a
    self-reference. Does the href need to be empty?

    <EdC> +q

    Jo: Yes, I think it does.

    <francois> ACTION: daoust to review same-document reference for
    first bullet in 4.2.9 [recorded in
    [58]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action12]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-983 - Review same-document reference for
    first bullet in 4.2.9 [on François Daoust - due 2009-06-23].

    Francois: I think it is OK to use a URI--someone should look into
    it.

    <jo> ACTION: Jo (following Francois's ACTION-983) to make sure that
    a note is put under 4.2.9 to clarify what is and what is not a same
    docuemnt reference [recorded in
    [59]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action13]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-984 - (following Francois's ACTION-983) to
    make sure that a note is put under 4.2.9 to clarify what is and what
    is not a same docuemnt reference [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23].

    EdC: There should be a note clarifying what is a same doc reference.

ACTION-730

    <jo> ACTION-730?

    <trackbot> ACTION-730 -- François Daoust to work with jo to figure
    out the details of a workshop on Content Transformation -- due
    2009-02-28 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [60]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/730

      [60] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/730

    Jo: Francois, are we still going to have a CT workshop?

    Francois: No, not needed.

    <jo> close ACTION-730

    <trackbot> ACTION-730 Work with jo to figure out the details of a
    workshop on Content Transformation closed

ACTION-892

    <jo> ACTION-892?

    <trackbot> ACTION-892 -- François Daoust to prepare an ICS with
    MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends
    on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it. -- due 2009-04-30
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [61]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/892

      [61] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/892

    <francois> ACTION-892?

    <trackbot> ACTION-892 -- François Daoust to prepare an ICS with
    MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends
    on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it. -- due 2009-04-30
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [62]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/892

      [62] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/892

    Jo: Can you do this again for the current draft?

    Francois: Do this now or wait for the final draft?
    ... I'll try to do something for next week.

    Jo: Should we close this and add a new issue?

    Francois: No, let's leave it open.

ACTION-925

    <jo> ACTION-925?

    <trackbot> ACTION-925 -- François Daoust to ascertain the
    availability of tests that ensure that same origin policy
    conformance, when implemented in this way, can be tested -- due
    2009-04-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [63]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/925

      [63] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/925

    <chaals> [I claim that I have tests for this, and already have an
    action to provide them, so this action should be closed]

    Jo: Action on Chaals.

    <jo> Close ACTION-925

    <trackbot> ACTION-925 Ascertain the availability of tests that
    ensure that same origin policy conformance, when implemented in this
    way, can be tested closed

ACTION-926

    <jo> ACTION-926?

    <trackbot> ACTION-926 -- Jo Rabin to inser sections under proxy
    decision to transform a. to specify SHOULD NOT in the presence of
    the features listed at
    [64]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html and b. to include
    the current cullets listed as heuristics -- due 2009-04-02 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

      [64] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html

    <trackbot>
    [65]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/926

      [65] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/926

    Jo: I've done that.

    <jo> Close ACTION-926

    <trackbot> ACTION-926 Inser sections under proxy decision to
    transform a. to specify SHOULD NOT in the presence of the features
    listed at [66]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html and b.
    to include the current cullets listed as heuristics closed

      [66] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html

ACTION-927

    <jo> ACTION-927?

    <trackbot> ACTION-927 -- Jo Rabin to tpo preface the first sentence
    in 4.1.5 with Aside from the usual procedures defined in [RFC 2616
    HTTP] -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [67]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/927

      [67] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/927

    Jo: I've done that.

    <jo> close ACTION-927

    <trackbot> ACTION-927 Tpo preface the first sentence in 4.1.5 with
    Aside from the usual procedures defined in [RFC 2616 HTTP] closed

ACTION-928

    <jo> ACTION-928?

    <trackbot> ACTION-928 -- François Daoust to progress registration of
    the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject --
    due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [68]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/928

      [68] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/928

    Francois: Waiting for an update draft of the list with the updated
    definitions.

    <jo> [i.e. it's Jo's fault]

    Francois: Targetting temporary registry right now for headers.

ACTION-930

    <jo> ACTION-930?

    <trackbot> ACTION-930 -- Jo Rabin to write something in the
    introduction about respect for CP prefgernces, respect for user
    preferences and the CP's ultimate sanction on the degree of
    preference they are willing to accommodate -- due 2009-04-02 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [69]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/930

      [69] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/930

    Jo: I've done that.

    <jo> [70]Response to ACTION-930

      [70] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#d2e161

    <jo> Close ACTION-930

    <trackbot> ACTION-930 Write something in the introduction about
    respect for CP prefgernces, respect for user preferences and the
    CP's ultimate sanction on the degree of preference they are willing
    to accommodate closed

ACTION-931

    <jo> ACTION-931?

    <trackbot> ACTION-931 -- Jo Rabin to insert informative text in the
    relevant aqppendix describing the use of 403 in declining to server
    content because of security concerns or whatever -- due 2009-04-02
    -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [71]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/931

      [71] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/931

    <jo> [72]Use of 403

      [72] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#sec-server-use-of-403

    Jo: Done

    <jo> close ACTION-931

    <trackbot> ACTION-931 Insert informative text in the relevant
    aqppendix describing the use of 403 in declining to server content
    because of security concerns or whatever closed

ACTION-932

    <jo> ACTION-932?

    <trackbot> ACTION-932 -- Jo Rabin to specify what he means by the
    USer Agent editorial note under 4.1.5 -- due 2009-04-02 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [73]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/932

      [73] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/932

    Jo: Deleted this because I didn't know what I meant.

    <jo> Cloase ACTION-932

    <jo> Close ACTION-932

    <trackbot> ACTION-932 Specify what he means by the USer Agent
    editorial note under 4.1.5 closed

ACTION-933

    <jo> ACTION-933?

    <trackbot> ACTION-933 -- Jo Rabin to propose text for section 5
    referring to \"reasonable terms, timeliness, of access and so on,
    relating to the use cases of bug determinations, testing and so on
    -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [74]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/933

      [74] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/933

    Jo: In section 5, so it is done.

    <jo> [75]Response to ACTION-933

      [75] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#sec-testing

    <EdC> +q

    EdC: One comment that was made is that this should be available on a
    non-discriminatory basis.

    Jo: We'd need to clear what that meant.

    EdC: Is there a description of non-discriminatory in the WWW
    glossary?

    Jo: I get what you mean, but it will be hard to describe. It really
    refers to business practice which is out of scope.

    Francois: The "cheap" thing is going to be hard to describe as well.

    Jo: This was put in at your request Eduardo.
    ... I think this is going to be challenged at last call because it
    is not testable.

    <francois> +1 to remove the last sentence.

    Jo: What we wanted to avoid is the problem where testable CT proxy
    is available to only three people.

    <chaals> +1 to remove it as untestable

    Jo: I think this is going to challenged at last call and we going to
    have to remove this sentence anyway.

    EdC: Can we check first if there are good formal definitions for the
    terms we are using?

    <jo> ACTION: Eduardo to assess whether there is any relevant
    terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf
    ACTION-933 [recorded in
    [76]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action14]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-985 - Assess whether there is any relevant
    terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf
    ACTION-933 [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-06-23].

    <jo> Close ACTION-933

    <trackbot> ACTION-933 Propose text for section 5 referring to
    \"reasonable terms, timeliness, of access and so on, relating to the
    use cases of bug determinations, testing and so on closed

ACTION-934

    <jo> ACTION-934?

    <trackbot> ACTION-934 -- Jo Rabin to try to draft another doc to the
    TAG about D.1.3.2 -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [77]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/934

      [77] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/934

    <jo> Close ACTION-934

    <trackbot> ACTION-934 Try to draft another doc to the TAG about
    D.1.3.2 closed

    Jo: This is section G.1.4.2. I don't plan to go the TAG again
    because I think it would be a waste of time.

    Francois: In G.1.4.2, it explains my point about the represention of
    the resource.

    Jo: Francois, can you include this section in your writeup on the
    same-document reference?

    <jo> ACTION-956

ACTION-956

    <jo> ACTION-956?

    <trackbot> ACTION-956 -- François Daoust to review last call
    comments on CT to see where the responses need editing -- due
    2009-04-14 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [78]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/956

      [78] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/956

    Jo: Did you complete the review of the last call comments?

    Francois: No, not yet. We need to complete these before doing
    another last call.
    ... We may need to wait for replies for our responses.

ACTION-969

    <jo> ACTION-969?

    <trackbot> ACTION-969 -- Charles McCathieNevile to forward tests for
    Xss and cookie handling to group -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [79]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/969

      [79] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/969

    <EdC> To what extends does this overlap or supersede 925?

    <chaals> [in progress...]

    Jo: Those will be release once Chaals has approval to do so.

    <jo> [80]Remaining ISSUEs and ACTIONs prior to todays ...

      [80] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12

    Jo: We have 1 issue and 6 actions remaining open besides what we
    opened today..
    ... We hope to be able to move to last call by the end of this
    month.

    <Zakim> francois, you wanted to talk about charter extension

AOB

    Francois: The WG will expire soon, we'll need a 6-month extension.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requestz a 6 month extensions to
    allow it to complete its work

    <francois> +1

    <EdC> +1

    +1

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests a 6 month extensionz to
    allow it to complete its work

    <jo> +1

    RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests a 6 month extension to allow it to
    complete its work

    <brucel> +1

    <brucel> hugz

    <miguel> bye

    <jo> byez

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to review same-document reference for first
    bullet in 4.2.9 [recorded in
    [81]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action12]
    [NEW] ACTION: Eduardo to assess whether there is any relevant
    terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf
    ACTION-933 [recorded in
    [82]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action14]
    [NEW] ACTION: Eduardo to propose some specific text ref ISSUE-298
    [recorded in
    [83]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]
    [NEW] ACTION: eduardo to reveiw text and all references to user
    preferences and make editorial suggestion on how to clarify, taking
    into account Sean's points at
    [84]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.htm
    l [recorded in
    [85]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
    [NEW] ACTION: enact point 8 of Sean's email [recorded in
    [86]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo (following Francois's ACTION-983) to make sure that
    a note is put under 4.2.9 to clarify what is and what is not a same
    docuemnt reference [recorded in
    [87]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action13]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to add Accept-Language ot the other than list in
    4.1.5 [recorded in
    [88]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to check and correct spelling of "XMLHttpRequest"
    as necessary [recorded in
    [89]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to correct SeanP's point 2 [recorded in
    [90]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: jo to enact point 7 of seanp's email [recorded in
    [91]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: jo to enact point 8 of Sean's email [recorded in
    [92]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to enact Seanp's point 4 [recorded in
    [93]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to enact the resolution of 28th April ref x-device
    cf
    [94]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.htm
    l [recorded in
    [95]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

      [84] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html
      [94] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.html

    [DONE] ACTION: Jo to remove editorial note at 4.2.9 ref mobileOK and
    add a reference to mobileOK scheme to show how it is [recorded in
    [96]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 15:59:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC