- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:56:05 +0100
- 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/2009/03/03-bpwg-minutes.html ... and copied as text below. In short: 1. We're targeting another public working draft on MWABP to gather feedback from the developers community 2. I'll prepare a review questionnaire for the addendum on BP, so that we may resolve to publish the doc next week. 3. Discussion on X-Device-* HTTP Header fields for the Content Transformation Guidelines. Eduardo to propose some text that captures the essence of the discussion. 4. I'll prepare a poll on the question of mandating respect of heuristics so that we may eventually resolve ISSUE-286. Francois. ----- 03 Mar 2009 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0000.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-bpwg-irc Attendees Present jeffs, Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, rob, francois, yeliz, brucel, SeanP, EdC, adam, Kai_Dietrich, manrique, achuter Regrets DavidStorey, chaals, dom, jo, miguel, nacho, tomhume Chair DKA Scribe rob Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Update on MWABP 2. [6]Update on BP Addendum 3. [7]CT: X-Device HTTP Header fields 4. [8]Update on F2F logistics 5. [9]CT: Mandating respect of heuristics * [10]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ Update on MWABP DKA: looking at traffic on the list, Adam says there's another draft pending francois: Adam's working on it, he's doing it this week <jeffs> adam: francois asking on voice if you are on the call adam: I've had another pass through the doc making changes agreed and hope to post this draft this week. ... hope to have another draft before the F2F as well DKA: Can we be in a position to address Last-Call comments at the F2F? Is this possible still? francois: I don't think we have any choice except to have a few more iterations, the document needs to be pretty much finished before Last Call <jeffs> what has happened with the whole transcoding/https issue, please?? <francois> jeffs, the whole transcoding/https issue is still on, but for the Content Transformation Guidelines, not for MWABP. adam: Abel (who submitted the SVG BPs) suggested that these are not stand-alone BPs but support existing BPs adam: so we propose to remove the SVG section itself DKA: If there is no expertise in the WG then we should try to get feedback from elsewhere adam: I assume feedback will come to the public list? We've asked there. <jeffs> would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? DKA: may need some outreach work if there's no response on the list <jeffs> +1 on including canvas... adam: I've also asked about Canvas experience DKA: these drawing mechanisms fall under the same umbrella <jeffs> would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? and would you like me to look at canvas materials?? DKA: should we release another public draft now then? <jeffs> dan & adam: would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? and would you like me to look at canvas materials?? <DKA> Jeffs - yes and yes please. <jeffs> okay <DKA> :) adam: if public drafts encourage more feedback then maybe we should have more of them. We need more feedback. brucel: I'll see ifOpera has more SVG experience to share <jeffs> dan: do you want to make me an action re canvas? or just report back more informally?? francois: I agree we should publish publically as often as possible to get more feedback but it does delay work a bit because of the window for comments adam: Abel asks "It is going to be incorporated as concrete use cases for specific BPs?" Update on BP Addendum <Kai> [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0066.htm l [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0066.html <Kai> [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/att-0066 /ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090210.html [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/att-0066/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090210.html Kai: several changes have gone into this doc... ... have adopted the format that Dom suggested reducing the information to the minimum requireed ... Doc is self-explanatory ... Abstract and Intro now conform to Jo's text DKA: Is there anything else needed now (References, appendicies etc)? ... some of the text is pretty telegraphic! Kai: that's intentional. This doc never had explanatory text in its scope <EdC> small question: in the "evaluation procedures": are the bullet points always to be checked sequentially as specified, or is the order not that strict? Kai: Some of the devaluations need review, eg Device Properties ... Did anybody read this doc? DKA: Apparently! We intent to publish this doc before the F2F so timely review is essential <jeffs> +1 get docs out for reading well in advance of the f2f francois: Maybe 1 week for comments and resolve next week to publish or redraft? Kai: That'd be good francois: a questionnaire forces membes to respond and is a good way to ensure the document is reviewed DKA: can you do that Francois? francois: yes Kai: Thanks. I've got one small typo to correct, shall i do that now or just comment on it? francois: references section needs updating to match the style guide but isn't essential for the review Kai: OK, so these 2 points can be comments along with everything else from the questionnaire <Kai> Thanks to Manrique for helping out with the document! DKA: Good, hopefully there will be Champagne at the F2F then CT: X-Device HTTP Header fields francois: Haven't made much progress this past few weeks francois: still uncertain about HTTPS link rewriting and security, Jo is working on new wording to move the discussion on <jeffs> ACTION jeffs to get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP <trackbot> Created ACTION-910 - Get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-03-10]. <jeffs> ACTION jeffs to get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP <trackbot> Created ACTION-911 - Get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-03-10]. francois: Also X-Device- prefix headers is an open issue <francois> [13]Eduardo's proposal on X-Device-* HTTP headers [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0001.html francois: Eduardo's proposal is to stick with X-Device headers because there is no practical benefit in moving to registered headers <jeffs> -1 to X-Device- prefix headers... as I read IETF stuff, this would be "taky" francois: but there might be trouble ahead proposing "experimental headers" in the Rec <Bryan> there is a low buzz on my phone - analog noise - some wiring issue <Bryan> i can switch to mobile if needed jeffs: reading the IETF stuff it's definitely against using X-Device DKA: is there a middle way? To pursue registering a Device- header but in the Rec make it clear that X-Device is in widespread use? EdC: what is the practical benefit of registering? DKA: If you want to play nice in the Internet then the IETF who define HTTP set the rules and they say X- "experimental" headers need to be depricated eventually <brucel> goodbye all; vaccination time Bryan: Registration and deprication takes a long time, so practically makes little difference francois: If we formally register the Device headers, then we need to be clear exactly why we need them and it's been argued it's a hack of arguable value it the CT Guidelines are followed as a whole. ... So we really need to tidy the use-case if we are going to register the header <EdC> I refer to my comments regarding long migration phase, HTTP header overhead, and temporary character to be replaced by a solution as POWDER. SeanP: the use-case is to allow an origin-server to log or vary it's behaviour even when content is being transformed francois: then the CT-proxy should not alter these HTTP headers <EdC> But we are not allowed to make standards in this group... DKA: there is a contradiction: do we need it at all? vs it's in such widespread use we can't depricate it ... is the use-case of content-selection (eg which J2ME download) vs content-transformation one that justifies X-Device use? SeanP: the use-case is where the user has asked for desktop content (and spoofed the User-Agent). X-Device-User-Agent then allows the origin server to log or trace information EdC: The CT-proxies that systematically alter the User-Agent seem to regardless of the content. So maybe there isn't strong ground for registering this with the IETF DKA: Do you mean ask IETF if to register the header or ask IETF if we should be using the overall Device- header scheme at all? EdC: Yes <jeffs> +1 DKA: purely from IETF perspective, the only way forward is to say X-Device is used if User-Agent is altered, it is real advice to content providers. But don't propose registering the header because it's not seen as being a widely used use-case moving forwards <jeffs> from RFC 2076 (I think this is the right one) : '"experimental" This header is used for newly defined headers, which are to be tried out before entering the IETF standards track.' francois: then we'd have a normative problem - "a CT-Proxy MUST use X-Device-" <EdC> Jeffs: in practice X- has been interpreted as eXtension rather than eXperimental, and this for a long time... francois: the only solution I see is to move it to an informative section for content-providers ... without mandating the CT-Proxies all use it <EdC> -1 francois: I agree with Eduardo that if it is useful then registering with IETF would only make the mess greater SeanP: I'd prefer it to be normative to avoid variations that we have at the moment <jeffs> agree w Dan's idea, put folks on notice in this doc and formally consult w IETF DKA: working with IETF does give notice that this will be deprecate at some stage, is that useful? ... Is that acceptable? or a block to publication? francois: It won't block publication as a Last-Call DKA: I want to decouple publication of the 1.0 document from IETF discussion <DKA> "may be deprecated" <jeffs> agree w "may be", more real EdC: Depricated doesn't mean replace X-Device- with Device- - it might mean change the scheme altogether DKA: Ed, can you sugest some new wording keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF that may depricate this in the future? <francois> ACTION Eduardo to suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF and may deprecate this in the future <trackbot> Created ACTION-912 - Suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF and may deprecate this in the future [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-03-10]. Update on F2F logistics <EdC> there was a last issue: mandatory "heuristics" for CT. adam: Still OK to use Google in Victoria <EdC> OK, there is another fourth one: conformance statements (longer term)... francois: we're 10 or 11 people <francois> [14]Results of the F2F questionnaire [14] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-March-2009/results SeanP: can we have the address please for booking? <francois> ACTION Dan to start agenda discussion for upcoming F2F in London <trackbot> Created ACTION-913 - Start agenda discussion for upcoming F2F in London [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-03-10]. <EdC> Will there be conference calls during the F2F? If so, coordination with agenda and numbers to call? adam: I'll send logistics info after this call <francois> [I think so Eduardo, yes, I'll put the info on the page] <jeffs> conf call facilities for WG f2f would be A Good Thing CT: Mandating respect of heuristics <francois> ISSUE-286? <trackbot> ISSUE-286 -- Transformation of Mobile Content/Mandating some respect of some heuristics -- OPEN <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/286 [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/286 francois: All the arguments are on the table but we still need consensus SeanP: the reason I disagreed is that there is a continuum of content from lowest-common-denominator content to full desktop content and some of it may benefit from adaptation on certain devices francois: the counter-argument is that the content-providers want control over how their content is presented to their customers SeanP: Cache-Control: no-transform provides that control francois: with other side-effects and it requires the content provider changing their websites EdC: Yes, we're recapping old arguments here <jeffs> +1 on SeanP's comment... when in doubt, leave up to page-server to specify if they so choose EdC: and remember some content providers don't have much control over the headers their hosting service provides DKA: Can we resolvethis with a poll? francois: yes, something like "Do we mandate the heuristics? - Yes/No" <jeffs> as long as I am out of mtg by 11:30am EST I can attend any day m-th now DKA: this call is scheduled on US-time ... and US moves to summer-time next week, 3 weeks before Europe does <jeffs> as long as I am out of mtg by 11:30am <whatever_East_Coast_time_is/> I can attend any day m-th now DKA: We also have some absentees next few weeks so we will discuss on this on the mailing list <jeffs> [16]http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc [16] http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc <jeffs> "spring forward" DKA: But for next week we keep to US-time which will mean moving to 13:30 UTC next week <jsmanrique> see you Summary of Action Items [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 16:56:38 UTC