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

Re: [minutes] 12 May 2009 Teleconference

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 00:08:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4A09F36B.4020307@eunet.no>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>

so, nothing has changed apparently. W3C is obviously still happy with 
serving the needs of novarra, opera and the those who want to make a 
living out of bastardization of content they have no rights too.

The question was which heuristics will tell a transcoder whether an 
(X)HTML page is mobile optimised or not. I am impressed by the stunt you 
guys performed to demonstrate that the "mobileOptimised" tag added by 
the content owner in the markup itself is not enough evidence to say 
that page is meant to be mobile optimised! amazing.

"bruce: i agree with you that we shouldn't crown any vendor-specific 
marker."

Bruce, can you look at yourself in the mirror after saying this? do you 
realise that here you are talking about a "technology" (transcoders, 
albeit the term "technology" gives them way more honor than they 
deserve) which replaces the user-agent string to fool web sites? in 
terms of standards, transcoders are a sewage, you guys have  jumped into 
it with both feet and references (such as yours) to an inexistent 
concept of purity will not keep you immaculate. They'll just offer 
evidence of how ruthlessly opera is exploiting W3C for its objectives.

"tom: Agree, this is saying IE Mobile shouldn't transform, but not sure 
that this could be extended to other browsers not transforming."

But it certainly can be extended to transcoders to let them know they 
should not transcode. Of course, I am no longer expecting you to 
acknowledge self-evidence, Tom. Do you still go around claiming that you 
represent developers of some sort?

"<SeanP> I agree that we should avoid vendor markup"

of course. Sean, I deeply admire your perseverance.

"<jo> PORPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt the MS specific <meta 
name="MobileOptimized" content="NNN"> as mandatory evidence of mobile 
content
<jo> -1"

So much for .Mobi standing by the side of developers, Jo.

Luca

Francois Daoust wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The minutes of today's call are available at:
>  http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html
> ... and copied as text below.
>
> Resolutions taken during the call:
> - Add an erratum to mobileOK Basic Tests, at the right time, to point 
> to the edited version of XHTML Basic 1.1 including the lang attribute
> - on MWABP, remove second para of 3.2.1.2 and make no reference to 
> efficiency
>
> Francois.
>
>
> -----
> 12 May 2009
>
>    [2]Agenda
>
>       [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0012.html
>
>    See also: [3]IRC log
>
>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           tomhume, jo, Francois, rob, EdC, adam, BruceL, SeanP, yeliz
>
>    Regrets
>           jeffs, kai, abel, miguel, nacho
>
>    Chair
>           jo
>
>    Scribe
>           Tom
>
> Contents
>
>      * [4]Topics
>          1. [5]FYI - lang attribute back in XHTML Basic 1.1
>          2. [6]MWABP - new draft out. Feedback needed. Next steps?
>          3. [7]Mobile/Accessibility document - EOWG decision?
>          4. [8]Addendum to BP - next editorial session?
>          5. [9]CT - Abstract
>          6. [10]CT - Heuristics - mobileOptimized
>          7. [11]CT - Heuristics - rel="stylesheet"
>          8. [12]AOB
>      * [13]Summary of Action Items
>      _________________________________________________________
>
> FYI - lang attribute back in XHTML Basic 1.1
>
>    francois: Not much to say on this, except we were talking about this
>    a few months ago and the XHTMLWG integrated the lang attribute into
>    XHTML Basic 1.1. The second edition is a "proposed edit
>    recommendation edition", close to replacing the first edition. When
>    it's done we can update the DTD in the mobileOK checker to have the
>    LANG attribute back.
>    ... This is good news in that we're consistent with the I18N group.
>
>    jo: is there a DTD we could use if we want to?
>
>    <francois> [14]XHTML Basic 1.1 PER
>
>      [14] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PER-xhtml-basic-20090507/
>
>    francois: there's a schema for those who prefer it.
>
>    <francois> [15]DTD in the spec
>
>      [15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PER-xhtml-basic-20090507/#a_dtd
>
>    francois: this section contains links to the actual files - the
>    version associated with the document and that evolving over time.
>
>    jo: when should we edit the checker?
>
>    francois: wait for the document to become a recommendation, and then
>    update the checker
>
>    jo: do we refer to a specific version in the checker?
>
>    francois: we're not talking about editions in the document
>
>    jo: we don't say anything specific at all, if we're talking about
>    mobileOK basic
>
>    francois: all we have is a link to XHTML Basic 1.1, the dated
>    version of the first edition. This will link to the new edition.
>    ... mobileOK basic targets the first edition. We don't say anything
>    specific about DTDs, and I don't think we need to do anything to
>    clarify this. We could an erratum to the spec if we need to, to
>    explain what we mean by the XHTML Basic 1.1 DTD... that it follows
>    the evolution of XHTML Basic 1.1 recommendation (or not).
>
>    jo: but it's not an erratum, it's a clarification...
>
>    francois: if moving to the new DTD is a normative change (I think
>    it's a correction of something wrong), we can't just produce an
>    erratum. If we feel it's a useful clarification we can add an
>    erratum - that's the only way to add such comments.
>    ... let's wait for XHTML Basic to become a recommendation.
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add an erratum to mobileOK Basic Tests, at
>    the right time, to point to the edited version of XHTML Basic 1.1
>    including the lang attribute
>
>    <brucel> agree
>
>    <rob> +1
>
>    <francois> +1
>
>    RESOLUTION: Add an erratum to mobileOK Basic Tests, at the right
>    time, to point to the edited version of XHTML Basic 1.1 including
>    the lang attribute
>
>    <EdC> +1
>
>    jo: francois, can you enact this pls?
>
>    <jo> ACTION: daoust to enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1
>    revision - when it reaches rec [recorded in
>    [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-959 - Enact the resolution on XHTML Basic
>    1.1 revision - when it reaches rec [on Fran├žois Daoust - due
>    2009-05-19].
>
>    <yeliz> +1
>
> MWABP - new draft out. Feedback needed. Next steps?
>
>    <francois> [17]new draft of MWABP
>
>      [17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mwabp-20090507/
>
>    jo: we've had no feedback on this document as yet.
>
>    adam: I've had some feedback on appcache, an HTML5 feature for
>    caching web apps locally. It'd be good to have a BP on this subject
>    and discuss what form this should take. It's very HTML5-specific,
>    that's all the feedback I've had so far.
>
>    <EdC> What about the pending feedback from Francois and myself?
>
>    jo: How do you tell that feature is present?
>
>    adam: It's supported based on the target platform. Good question.
>
>    jo: do we want to discuss the merits of the proposal on this call,
>    or shall we gather some of these to discuss in a more consolidated
>    way once we've had feedback? The latter, I suggest
>
>    adam: agree
>
>    <jo> ISSUE: Should we have a BP on appcache?
>
>    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-297 - Should we have a BP on appcache? ;
>    please complete additional details at
>    [18]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/297/edit .
>
>      [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/297/edit
>
>    adam: re pending feedback from eduardo... the outstanding issue is
>    with 3.6.1 and 3.6.2. Agree with your comments, as they're
>    formulated right now they're a bit mickey mouse and don't reflect
>    reality. Not sure how to make them better - best solution might be
>    to make the language more woolly, talk about preferring server-side
>    XXX. Or if you have specific things you'd like to see in there, feel
>    free to propose them.
>
>    edc: I suggest you write a proposal and I'll comment on it again.
>    ... The other issue is on sprites.
>
>    <francois> [19]3.4.6 CSS Sprites
>
>      [19] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mwabp-20090507/#d1e8981
>
>    <jo> ACTION: adam to write a proposal in answer to EdC's comments on
>    3.6.1 and 3.6.2 [recorded in
>    [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-960 - Write a proposal in answer to EdC's
>    comments on 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 [on Adam Connors - due 2009-05-19].
>
>    adam: barring opinions from others, I don't have any more I can
>    extract through inspection. 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 are the sections; the
>    issue is technical and advanced, they're dependent on device support
>    - we have proposed icons to represent the fact that you need certain
>    features in the browser for them to make sense as recommendations.
>    There's a general issue of whether they make sense as
>    recommendations, or if they're "advanced tweaks"
>
>    edc: I'm reminded of multipart-mixed. if its supported (blackberry
>    and openwave browsers should be ok, safari has lousy support for
>    it), then it solves all your problems with icons and provides
>    greater benefits. I wonder what kind of best practice we want to put
>    into this document.
>
>    adam: can someone take an action to investigate multipart-mixed?
>
>    <jo> ACTION: Tom to investiagate multipart-mixed in the context of
>    3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of MWABP [recorded in
>    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-961 - Investiagate multipart-mixed in the
>    context of 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of MWABP [on Tom Hume - due 2009-05-19].
>
>    francois: I sent a comment about the security stuff (2.1 - do not
>    execute untrusted Javascript). Final paragraph needs rewriting.
>
>    <francois> [22]3.2.1 JSON
>
>      [22] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mwabp-20090507/#d1e542
>
>    francois: again, it's how to find a balance between best practice
>    and what's acceptable. it makes sense in 99% of cases, there's 1%
>    where security can be impacted.
>    ... so maybe it's not a good idea there.
>
>    adam: one option would be to remove that paragraph. Or we could
>    reword this paragraph to ensure that correct escaping is used with
>    eval(), and that this might even then not be secure.
>
>    francois: it's about not having access to sensitive data when you do
>    it.
>
>    adam: I'll have a crack at rewording and send to the list.
>
>    jo: wouldn't it be better for the sake of simplicity to remove the
>    paragraph?
>
>    francois: I'd prefer it removed
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove second para of 3.2.1.2 and make no
>    reference to efficiency
>
>    +1
>
>    <rob> +1
>
>    <yeliz> +1
>
>    RESOLUTION: Remove second para of 3.2.1.2 and make no reference to
>    efficiency
>
>    <francois> +1
>
>    RESOLUTION: Remove second para of 3.2.1.2 and make no reference to
>    efficiency
>
>    <adam> +1
>
>    <EdC> +1
>
>    francois: one thing I can do is to write a post on the BPWG blog to
>    trigger reactions.
>
>    <jo> ACTION: Francois to reach out for comments on MWABP via the
>    BPBlog [recorded in
>    [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-962 - Reach out for comments on MWABP via
>    the BPBlog [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2009-05-19].
>
>    francois: could you reach your respective developer communities too?
>    I suspect we won't get much feedback, it's a working draft and not a
>    last call (last calls tend to trigger reactions)
>
>    jo: any idea of groups we should particularly outreach to?
>
>    <EdC> Suggestion: if anybody blogs, try to participate in the
>    Carnival of the mobilists: [24]http://mobili.st.
>
>      [24] http://mobili.st/
>
>    adam: feels like a dearth of feedback. Been pushing hard at work for
>    this.
>    ... I'm inclined to sit on it for a week or two whilst I make
>    outstanding changes and wait for feedback internally. That draft can
>    be our LC candidate.
>
>    jo: so LC will be end this month/early june
>
> Mobile/Accessibility document - EOWG decision?
>
>    yeliz: as far as I know there hasn't been any agreement to proceed
>    with the publication of the draft.
>
>    jo: any action required from our side?
>
>    francois: i've not checked emails of the education/outreach group.
>    We took a resolution 2 weeks ago to publish the draft as soon as
>    they're ok with it.
>
>    jo: so we've prior approved it... we can go ahead when ready.
>
> Addendum to BP - next editorial session?
>
>    jo: I'm the blocker here, haven't added some further comments. We'll
>    need an editorial session following that.
>    ... it'll be a couple of weeks before I get a chance to do more on
>    this.
>
> CT - Abstract
>
>    <adam> +1
>
>    <brucel> bruce test
>
>    jo: on action 929, appreciate your input here Eduardo - I do have
>    some comments. Apologies for not replying.
>    ... would rather make them on-list than now.
>
>    <EdC> Let us defer then.
>
>    jo: so let's defer that discussion. Apologies for not making
>    progress, it'll be another couple of weeks before I can address it.
>    ... anything else on CT from anyone?
>
> CT - Heuristics - mobileOptimized
>
>    jo: the problem with recommending specific vendor things is obvious,
>    but if they're prevalent in the marketplace it's equally problematic
>    not to mention them.
>
>    ed: MS has faced the problem of having devices that are more capable
>    and less capable and having several ways of viewing pages - fit to
>    screen, view as is, try to do something clever, etc. - and they
>    realised there was a need to let developers state explicitly that
>    the content was optimised, there's no need to try and do something
>    clever with it, it will display OK on mobile, etc.... so ignore the
>    default browser settings and do what the content provider intended.
>    ... so it's been there for some time. It's documented in the MS
>    mobile windows site. Its importance is that it's a rare indication
>    that HTML content has been developed for mobile.
>
>    <brucel> does the metatag say *which* mobile browser/phone its
>    already optimised for?
>
>    ed: usually all the rules we've examined have had to do with content
>    types, markers, which were almost-exclusively used by mobile devices
>    and not by PC browsers... and this is the only indication in HTML
>    content that is unambiguously indicative that this is HTML content
>    optimised for smartphones.
>    ... It is attached to windows mobile devices, whatever their
>    market-share is at present.
>
>    bruce: does it say which browser/phone the content is optimised for?
>    Or that I as a developer am certain this is lean and mean? I'm not
>    sure what the tag means.
>
>    ed: it's an indication that is meant for internet explorer
>
>    <francois> [25]Layout meta tag in MSDN
>
>      [25] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms890014.aspx
>
>    <francois> [[ Web developers use the MOBILEOPTIMIZED meta tag to
>    control the Internet Explorer Mobile layout ]]
>
>    ed: it'll be ignored by any other browser.
>
>    bruce: so are we saying if this tag exists it must be obeyed and no
>    transformation must be done by any browser... or not by IE?
>
>    jo: it is conclusive evidence that the site has been created for
>    mobile
>    ... the question it raises to me is that if we see evidence in the
>    markup that specific devices are being targeted... is it equally
>    conclusive evidence that its' ready for the device we're targeting
>    to?
>    ... if you want to show evidence your markup is targeting mobile
>    there are lots of other ways of doing it.
>
>    bruce: i agree with you that we shouldn't crown any vendor-specific
>    marker.
>
>    <yeliz> I agree with Bruce as well
>
>    ed: there are lots of other ways of doing it. i'd like to know what
>    they are, given that we're restricting them.
>    ... this is the only markup I know that will work for HTML (as
>    opposed to XHTML, WML, etc)
>
>    jo: you could use rel="handheld" with a self-referential link
>    ... my preference is that vendor-specific things irrespective of
>    whether the device belongs to that vendor is a dangerous path.
>
>    <Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to wonder if it's evidence the site is
>    made-for-mobile or made-for-mobile-IE?
>
>    <brucel> I'm not against vendor-specific stuff per se, and IE can
>    obey its own metatags, but noone else should be bound by them
>
>    tom: Agree, this is saying IE Mobile shouldn't transform, but not
>    sure that this could be extended to other browsers not transforming.
>
>    <SeanP> I agree that we should avoid vendor markup
>
>    <jo> PORPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt the MS specific <meta
>    name="MobileOptimized" content="NNN"> as mandatory evidence of
>    mobile content
>
>    <jo> -1
>
>    <rob> 0
>
>    -1
>
>    <EdC> 0
>
>    <francois> -1
>
>    <SeanP> -1
>
>    <yeliz> -1
>
>    <brucel> -`1
>
> CT - Heuristics - rel="stylesheet"
>
>    <francois> [26]EdC's email
>
>      [26] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0011.html
>
>    ed: this relates to XHTML stylesheets. You can, with some
>    transcoders, mark stylesheets and control how much is filtered out
>    by transcoders. The proposal is "if you see the XHTML stylesheet
>    which is marked as mobile-ready, in principle they shouldn't be
>    taken out". External stylesheets marked as "all" mean "good for
>    every device". Here the point is that there are some browsers (newer
>    ones especially) that will not consider ALT stylesheets but take
>    desktop and ALL
>    ... since ALL covers both categories (mobile and full web), the
>    second part of the proposal is to say "ALL means ALL" and it
>    shouldn't be touched.
>
>    <Zakim> francois, you wanted to wonder about what should not be
>    touched
>
>    francois: what should not be touched? The XHTML content, the HTML,
>    the CSS?
>
>    ed: the CSS
>
>    francois: it only makes sense if you don't touch the XHTML. In many
>    cases you could make changes in the HTML, then CSS changes are
>    required... as you change the structure of the HTML page some
>    directives are no longer valid and don't make sense. If you change
>    the HTML you may need to change the CSS - not that CT proxies
>    necessarily do this properly...
>    ... so we can't prevent it in the guidelines.
>
>    jo: this sounds like the discussion on the transformability or
>    otherwise of images. is there a parallel worth considering?
>
>    ed: you might have XHTML which does links without native for
>    handheld/desktop stylesheets. You might change the HTML but not
>    stylesheets.
>
>    <SeanP> Francois is correct; if you change the markup, you probably
>    will need to change the CSS
>
>    jo: sean/rob? any comment?
>
>    sean: agree with francois. If the markup is changed, good chance you
>    need to change the CSS too.
>
>    ed: if you don't change the XHTML, does it make sense to change the
>    CSS? No.
>
>    jo: this is even more similar to "if there's a no-transform on the
>    HTML, does this have implications to included parts". We decided
>    not, on images. Does the same argument apply here?
>
>    ed: The same would apply but here we're explicitly saying "yes, if
>    it's for a mobile device".
>
>    sean: if you have a no-transform or some other content type, it
>    should apply to the CSS.
>
>    jo: a derived no-transform rather than an explicit one.
>
>    <Zakim> rob, you wanted to say seems sensible to either transform
>    both HTML and CSS together or change neither
>
>    <brucel> I need more time to think thru after the explanations ...
>
>    rob: agree with ed and sean. typically you'd change both HTML and
>    CSS or neither. can't see any reason to just change CSS.
>
>    <jo> PROPSOED RESOLUTION: If the HTML is being treated as "no
>    transform" then external stylesheets retrieves as a consequence of
>    retrieving the HTML should be treated the same
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If the HTML is being treated transparently
>    then external stylesheets retrieved as a consequence of retrieving
>    the HTML should be treated the same
>
>    <Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to wonder if we argued against "derived
>    transformation" as it imposed a page model on HTTP where none
>    existed before.
>
>    ed: at the time, we were imposing that model on a specific feature
>    (the no-transform directive). Here we're not saying it's linked to
>    that...
>
>    francois: i'm confused... I can see examples where we might want to
>    change CSS (e.g. absolute positions of resources).
>    ... we're talking about external stylesheets in general, not
>    handheld ones.
>
>    jo: what about recursively referenced stylesheets?
>
>    ed: ALL or "handheld" would be the one to work on
>
>    jo: how far should this go?
>
>    ed: as far as the recursion goes.
>
>    jo: what about stylesheets that are referenced from stylesheets that
>    are themselves references as "all" or "handheld" - do they inherit
>    properties?
>
>    ed: logically, yes.
>
>    jo: I'd like us not to take a resolution on this without considering
>    our previous decision. There are caching implications here too, and
>    indefinite numbers of recursively referenced stylesheets.
>
>    +1
>
>    <francois> +1
>
>    <brucel> +1
>
>    <yeliz> +1
>
>    <SeanP> It does sound like we need to think about this a bit.
>
>    <SeanP> I think that is correct.
>
>    francois: another question on handheld and all. One part is about
>    having the "link alternate"... we agreed not to have "all" mentioned
>    in the list of mandatory heuristics (for reasons I can't remember).
>    ... The same reasons should apply here as well.
>    ... we should dig into the archives.
>
>    <EdC> Is there also a recursion problem with alternate links?
>
>    <jo> ISSUE: with reference to Eduardo's point about linked
>    stylesheets,
>    [27]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="alternate" (per discussion of meeting on 12th May)
>
>      [27] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0011.html
>
>    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-298 - With reference to Eduardo's point
>    about linked stylesheets,
>    [28]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="alternate" (per discussion of meeting on 12th May) ; please
>    complete additional details at
>    [29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/298/edit .
>
>      [28] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0011.html
>      [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/298/edit
>
> AOB
>
>    jo: anything?
>
>    <brucel> nah
>
>    <yeliz> no from me as well
>
>    <brucel> Bye, kisses all
>
>    <jo> [bye]
>
>    <EdC> bye
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>    [NEW] ACTION: adam to write a proposal in answer to EdC's comments
>    on 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 [recorded in
>    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
>    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1
>    revision - when it reaches rec [recorded in
>    [31]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Francois to reach out for comments on MWABP via the
>    BPBlog [recorded in
>    [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Tom to investiagate multipart-mixed in the context of
>    3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of MWABP [recorded in
>    [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
>
>    [End of minutes]
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 22:09:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC