- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:59:18 +0200
- 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