- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:24:35 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's meeting are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
Resolutions taken during the call:
- For MWBP/WCAG: The BPWG requests publication of the
Mobile/Accessibility documents as a WG Note.
- In MWABP: Remove references to DCCI and DPE ans they are not mature
enough to qualify for Best Practice
- In CT: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included resources
refernced from a resource that has been handled transparently that are
specifically noted as being handheld (mobile) applicable should not be
transformed
- For CT: Create a standing mailing list called
public-content-transformation-conformance to record conformance
statements and reference from CT Guidelines
- In CT: on 4.1.5.5 add the text Outside of the scope of normal HTTP
operation ...
Discussion also covered referencing CSS Media Queries in MWABP, doing
more outreach on mobileOK scheme, and same-document reference for CT.
Francois.
-----
30 Jun 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0135.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
DKA, tomhume, Francois, jo, EdC, SeanP, manrique
Regrets
brucel, kai, miguel, nacho, adam, yeliz
Chair
jo
Scribe
francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Administrativa
2. [6]Update on MWABP (BP 2)
3. [7]Actions on BP2
4. [8]Update on BP 1.5
5. [9]mobileOK Scheme 1.0
6. [10]CT - Draft 1s
7. [11]CT - Same-document reference
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Administrativa
francois: Charter request is being processed. Should hear by next
week
jo: we're out of charter from tomorrow
... can't have a call next week w/o renewal.
dka: we can have it, just don't tell jo.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests publication of the
Mobile/Accessibility documents.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests publication of the
Mobile/Accessibility documents as a WG Note.
<jo> +1
<francois> +1
<EdC> 0
<SeanP> +1
0
<jsmanrique> +1
<DKA> +1
RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests publication of the
Mobile/Accessibility documents as a WG Note.
<DKA> :)
Update on MWABP (BP 2)
jo: There's still a little way to go before this is ready for a
further public draft, let alone a LC draft
... there are unresolved questions to do with the document
... On device capability detection, can we discuss or should we
wait? Eduardo, you had some things on this...?
edC: in essence I think that it is in agreement with comments
published recently in the mailing list, to make a distinction
between
<jo> [13]Thread on Device Capability Detection
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0066.html
edC: the technologies that are available and can be endorsed, and
mentioning those that are emerging and stating they may become
relevant,
but not committing to them as best practice in the doc.
jo: I feel the current text goes further than we should, on the
basis that DPI/DPE are not fully fledged technologies, or even RECs.
francois: I agree with you on those which are not standards yet.
dka: I reluctantly agree, I'd like to be more specific so the doc is
more useful and standalone.
... what I don't like is that the current one is a little cryptic,
but I don't see how we can resolve this. we can only make it
non-cryptic by making
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove references to DCCI and DPE ans they
are not mature enough to qualify for Best Practice
dka: specific recommendations around technologies, which I agree we
shouldn't do.
... The wording is purposely vague.
jo: my view is that this is not actionable as written, and there's
not much one can do about it other than remove those...
<DKA> +1
<francois> +1
<jo> +1
<EdC> +1
RESOLUTION: Remove references to DCCI and DPE ans they are not
mature enough to qualify for Best Practice
jo: I also have a question about use of media queries, an
established technology in the sense that it's been a REC...
francois: it's not a REC
dka: it's a candidate rec
<francois> [14]CSS Media queries CR
[14] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-css3-mediaqueries-20090423/
jo: it's been around since before we started BP1!
... there is doubt about the implementations status of CSS media
queries.
... the fact that it's only a CR counts against it strongly, but we
have (despite Bruce's contributions) an unknown number of
implementations in mobile.
... I don't know how you establish if they're supported on any
particular device.
... they're not recorded in DDRs
dka: iphone safari and android implement some elements of them.
jo: so 2 threads here: how widely supported is it, and is it any use
in the presence of scripting to query device properties?
dka: on the iphone they use CSS media queries to see if the device
is landscape or portrait. Not the best way to do this, but shows a
use for what is a dynamic property.
... screen width can change.
... this doesn't mean we should endorse the full media query spec,
it's not implemented which is why this is a CR
jo: surely they only work on page load, not dynamically once
displayed?
<francois> [15]BP1 Style Sheets
[15] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#style
<francois> [[ When creating style sheets, take advantage of the CSS
media types (these may be used both in the CSS @media rule and in
the media attribute of the link element) to specify styles that
apply to handheld rendering. ]]
francois: in BP1 we reference media queries... it's also in
mobileOK, so what are we trying to add?
jo: that's media selectors, not media queries
... in BP1 we didn't reference media queries
<jo> to be clear it's things like:
<jo> <link rel="stylesheet" media="not screen and (color)"
href="example.css" />
francois: I agree with you in this case...
... we're missing implementations.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Drop reference to CSS Media Queries
dka: I wouldn't be so query to remove references to media queries. I
don't support this right now.
... I'm not comfortable because I don't know what the status of
implementation is.
... if the latest webkit browsers on phones support most of it and
fennec supports it, arguably it belongs in this doc.
... we need more information
francois: I can ask the CSS media query folks...
<EdC> This actually addresses only one aspect of the issue raised by
Jo. What about the other: are media queries useful and recommended
as a best practice?
<jo> ACTION: daoust to enquires as to status of CSS Media Queries
Rec [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-986 - Enquires as to status of CSS Media
Queries Rec [on François Daoust - due 2009-07-07].
jo: it's open as to how relevant this is to mobile web applications,
and what this contributes over and above script...
edC: it's too ... to be of importance right now. Is there an overlap
of various techniques? Should the BP suggest when to use which? This
bit is missing.
jo: we can't handle your comments on this call without adam being
here... and is there much to say post- the list discussion?
edC: that's correct
Actions on BP2
jo: open issues, actions...
<jo> [17]Open Issues and Actions on BP 2
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14
<jo> (20 open actions 10 open issues or thereabouts need tidyong up
on BP2)
Update on BP 1.5
jo: can't do this without the gentleman from suffolk
mobileOK Scheme 1.0
<DKA> it rocks
jo: well done BPWG, another doc created and published
dka: we're in danger with mobileok going so well, that people might
not notice. can w3c do more to publicise it?
... the publication of mobileok scheme appeared on the home page. We
know that was the last link in the chain for overall publication...
... but anyone reading the homepage note will shrug and not
recognise the importance of it.
... can you prod someone into action?
francois: not sure we need a press release like that. Perhaps a blog
post for the bpwg blog?
... I released an updated version of the user interface for the
mobileok checker. When your page is OK I added a section to give you
the POWDER claim
... you could use to claim your conformance.
... I'm planning to write some posts on that as well.
jo: checker library is 1.1?
francois: not in the library itself, but in the UI
<jo> ACTION: Dan to draft a blog post on mobileOK Scheme [recorded
in [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-987 - Draft a blog post on mobileOK Scheme
[on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-07-07].
CT - Draft 1s
<jo> [19]Draft 1s
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0102.html
jo: lots to do on this.
<jo> [20]Draft 1s
[20]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622
jo: incorporated in that draft is use of Eduardo's proposed text on
fair use
<francois> ACTION-971?
<trackbot> ACTION-971 -- Jo Rabin to adopt text proposed by EdC and
Amended by Jo for the Abstract -- due 2009-06-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/971
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/971
jo: comments?
<francois> ACTION-985?
<trackbot> ACTION-985 -- Eduardo Casais to assess whether there is
any relevant terminology we can quote in respect of last para of
Section 5 - cf ACTION-933 -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/985
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/985
<francois> close ACTION-985
<trackbot> ACTION-985 Assess whether there is any relevant
terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf
ACTION-933 closed
<francois> ACTION-981?
<trackbot> ACTION-981 -- Eduardo Casais to reveiw text and all
references to user preferences and make editorial suggestion on how
to clarify, taking into account Sean's points at
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.htm
l -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html
<trackbot>
[24]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/981
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/981
jo: tempted to propose we pull this out into a separate section.
i've not made any progress on this in the last week.
... anyone got any comments?
seanP: separate section is a good idea, it's confusing when spread
around the document.
jo: references from the bits it's taken out of is the right thing to
do.
edC: go ahead, please take into account the short discussion on the
mailing list w/francois...
<jo>
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.htm
l
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html
jo: action-982 on stylesheets...
<jo> ACTION: Jo to proposed text for separate section based on EdC's
ACTION-981 and taking into account his refinement of that at
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.htm
l [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-988 - Proposed text for separate section
based on EdC's ACTION-981 and taking into account his refinement of
that at
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.htm
l [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html
<jo> close ACTION-981
<trackbot> 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
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.htm
l closed
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html
<jo> ACTION-982?
<trackbot> ACTION-982 -- Eduardo Casais to propose some specific
text ref ISSUE-298 -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/982
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/982
jo: eduardo and I had a discussion. I still don't understand this,
anything a stylesheet might have referred to might have been
transformed.
... the problem I have here is that I don't know what we can write.
Eduardo... can you help?
edC: let me try to put the converse question: if you have a
stylesheet and at least the stylesheet is marked as handheld, why
would it become invalid if you want to deliver handheld-specific
content to a mobile device?
jo: it's more a feature of the nature of the transformation, as to
whether it does or does not try to preserve as much of the original
style as possible. It's not something we can say anything sensible
about.
edC: then why do you think that enclosing markup marked
"handheld-specific" would be transformed?
jo: the same elements may have both handheld and non-handheld markup
style applied to them.
seanP: I'm a bit confused too. My understanding is that if you have
a handheld page, and you weren't transforming it, you wouldn't
transform the stylesheet no matter what the medium type
... and if you have a desktop page being transformed, it could have
a handheld CSS but you wouldn't use that one, you'd use the
non-handheld one.
... so you WOULD want to transform that, if you were transforming
the page itself. To me there's no need to say anything here, we've
already said "transform the CSS if you transform the page"
<francois> [The question seems rather to be: is markup that links to
a handheld CSS stylesheet an explicit mobile tag that fits in the
list of 4.2.9 Proxy Decision to Transform]
edC: I go back to what sean was saying. if this is the intent that
is correct and there's nothing in the guidelines enforcing that...
... in it's present configuration the rules allow you to preserve
mobile-specific markup but do what you like with the handheld
stylesheet.
jo: so we're saying "leave stylesheets attached to mobile pages
alone". But we resolved not to say the same re images attached to
pages. why?
edC: because here we can say the stylesheet is explicitly handheld.
there is no ambiguity.
... if you have a desktop markup, you'll have a screen stylesheet
...
jo: what do we do about cases like opera, which is handheld and
ignores the handheld bits?
edC: that's opera's problem.
seanP: in 4.1.5.4, it mentions that (...)
... which is what i was thinking of. there's nothing on what happens
if you don't transform the page itself.
edC: if you access a linked resource, you should access with the
same characteristics, but it says nothing about the response.
francois: it means add a bulletpoint to the list in 4.2.9 ...
... for proxies, there's no way to link the request for a resource
to a previous request for the markup except maybe using HTTP_REFERER
... so the only actionable statement would be to use the value of
the referer, to continue to behave transparently wrt a linked
resource
edC: the other technique is for all proxies relying on
url-rewriting, don't rewrite a link for a stylesheet marked handheld
... I didn't want to include every included resource...
... but this one is specific, because there is a marking for it.
francois: you can then have a mobileok marked up regular stylesheet
- e.g. if the server uses transformation.
edC: you are correct if you haven't said it's for handheld, or
encoded content in a media selector for handheld.
<jo> Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included resources
refernced from no transform resource that are specifically noted as
being handheld (mobile) applicable should not be transformed
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that
included resources refernced from a resource that has been handled
transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile)
applicable should not be transformed
francois: so what is the rationale to restrict this to handheld? i'm
fine with it, just can't see why it's restricted.
jo: because then we drag along the image case.
edC: and you can't mark an image as mobile specific.
francois: we're talking about markup detected as mobile.
... handheld in this case requires the CT proxy to check referer and
remember there was a handheld attribute value somewhere.
jo: if it's a link rewriting proxy it could remember the link it
rewrote, but this is a document untouched by a LR proxy...
... the request on a transparently handled document will be sent to
the origin server not proxy
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that
included resources refernced from a resource that has been handled
transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile)
applicable should not be transformed (this is applicable to non link
rewriting proxies only)
seanP: don't think this does any harm...
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that
included resources refernced from a resource that has been handled
transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile)
applicable should not be transformed
<jo> +1
<EdC> +1
+1
<SeanP> +1
<francois> 0 as I don't grab why it's restricted to handheld...
RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included
resources refernced from a resource that has been handled
transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile)
applicable should not be transformed
<jo> ACTION: jo to enact resolution on included resources identified
as mobile in 4.2.9 (above) [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-989 - Enact resolution on included
resources identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above) [on Jo Rabin - due
2009-07-07].
jo: eduardo proposed that we have a mailing list for conformance
statements - otherwise where do they go?
edC: where can you put them, where can you find them?
jo: brilliant and blindingly obvious.
... comment?
<francois> +1 to the creation of a mailing-list for ICS statements.
+1
<EdC> +1
<SeanP> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Create a standing mailing list called
public-content-transformation-conformance to record conformance
statements and reference from CT Guidelines
<jo> +1
francois: this is just to record statements, not have an entity that
validates them?
... we might also hit max length limits with that name
edC: one consequence is that i suggest the list is for people to
provide feedback on tests re conformance
francois: absolutely, it's a public forum to reply to conformance
statements.
<SeanP> +1
<EdC> +1
RESOLUTION: Create a standing mailing list called
public-content-transformation-conformance to record conformance
statements and reference from CT Guidelines
<jo> ACTION: Jo to reference the conformance mailing list in the ct
doc [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-990 - Reference the conformance mailing
list in the ct doc [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
<jo> ACTION: daoust to check legality of mailing list name and maek
the new list [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-991 - Check legality of mailing list name
and maek the new list [on François Daoust - due 2009-07-07].
jo: I was actioned to put in a table of x-device mappings, which I
did. although you SHOULD NOT change any other headers, if you do ,
SHOULD or MUST you record the changed value in an x-device version
of the headaer?
<EdC> this was also one of the points I raised in another message.
francois: purpose of this table was to register new header
appropriately in the IANA registry
... if we have another guideline saying you can register any
x-device-header fields you like, we'll run into trouble.
<jo>
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0084.htm
l
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0084.html
<jo>
[35]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-draf
ts/Guidelines/090622#sec-original-headers
[35]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622#sec-original-headers
seanP: are you asking that even though you change some headers other
than the ones you're "allowed" to, you should put x-device in for
those too?
jo: that would be logical
seanP: makes sense to me. why would other headers be special?
jo: it's covered in the text, you could infer it from the text
<francois> Scribe: francois
SeanP: I think the text already says that this is the case.
edc: Yes, there is enough room for other mappings to be used for
other HTTP header fields.
... We have to link it to section 4.1.5
jo: can we resolve to leave it as it stands?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: on 4.1.5.5 add the text Outside of the
scope of normal HTTP operation ...
<EdC> +1
<SeanP> +1
<jo> +1
+1
<jo> ACTION: Jo to add the text proposed in resolution above on
4.1.5.5 [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-992 - Add the text proposed in resolution
above on 4.1.5.5 [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
RESOLUTION: on 4.1.5.5 add the text Outside of the scope of normal
HTTP operation ...
CT - Same-document reference
<jo> [37]Same doc reference
[37]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622#sec-proxy-decision-to-transform
->
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0121.htm
l Thread on same-document reference
[38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0121.html
jo: in 4.2.9, we can be sure in that case that it is a same-document
reference
francois: RFC3986 is pretty clear on the definition.
... we should complete first bullet of 4.2.9 to say that href can
contain a same-document reference
jo: we need to put a note that explains why this doesn't work when
the content is multi-served.
<jo> ACTION: JO to propose text on same document refernce under
4.2.9 proposing a note to explain that this cannot be used for
multiserving environemnts where more than one represenation shares
the same URI [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-993 - Propose text on same document
refernce under 4.2.9 proposing a note to explain that this cannot be
used for multiserving environemnts where more than one represenation
shares the same URI [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
ACTION-983?
<trackbot> ACTION-983 -- François Daoust to review same-document
reference for first bullet in 4.2.9 (and elsewhere where it is
referred to e.g. Appendix G) -- due 2009-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[40]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/983
[40] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/983
close ACTION-983
<trackbot> ACTION-983 Review same-document reference for first
bullet in 4.2.9 (and elsewhere where it is referred to e.g. Appendix
G) closed
edc: quickly, there was a point I raised on URI patterns.
jo: yes, we added a note, but it seems not to be clear enough. Let's
come back to that next week.
... We also have Charles' comments and proposed test to review.
[call adjourned]
<jsmanrique> bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Dan to draft a blog post on mobileOK Scheme [recorded
in [41]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to check legality of mailing list name and maek
the new list [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to enquires as to status of CSS Media Queries
Rec [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to add the text proposed in resolution above on
4.1.5.5 [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to enact resolution on included resources
identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above) [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JO to propose text on same document refernce under
4.2.9 proposing a note to explain that this cannot be used for
multiserving environemnts where more than one represenation shares
the same URI [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to proposed text for separate section based on
EdC's ACTION-981 and taking into account his refinement of that at
[47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.htm
l [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to reference the conformance mailing list in the ct
doc [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 15:25:12 UTC