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

[minutes] BPWG 22 September 2009

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:57:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4AB8F3E7.2040000@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as text below.


Resolutions and topics discussed:

- for The Addendum to the Mobile Web Best Practices:
  Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests 
[after Thursday] the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note

- for MWABP:
  * last discussion on canvas vs. svg.
  * Adam is to organize an editorial meeting for a last round of 
editorial changes.
  * no further change anticipated on the content itself at this point, 
time for everyone to review the document!

- for the CT guidelines:
  * We define same origin to mean matching protocol, domain and port 
(put suitably in RFC 3986-ese)
  * Jo has some a few actions to do to update the spec.
  * Time for everyone to review the latest draft. Goal is resolve *next 
week* to publish another last call.
  * Time for everyone to review the ICS statement, and check that all 
normative statements appear, and that the introduction suits everyone.
  * Time to send replies to last call comments. Jo has kindly stepped 
forward to relieve me of that action and see what still needs to be done 
before we eventually send the replies.

Thanks,
Francois.


-----
22 Sep 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0059.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, jo, miguel, brucel, EdC, adam, Phil_Archer,
           Kai_Dietrich, SeanP, DKA

    Regrets
           nacho, yeliz, sangwhan, achuter, jeffs, abel, manrique, tom

    Chair
           jo

    Scribe
           brucel, EdC

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Final F2F
          2. [6]MWABP
          3. [7]Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices
          4. [8]CT draft 1t
          5. [9]Issues and actions
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Final F2F

    Jo: 1st up; final F2F. We agreed Francois will run a poll. Francois?
    ... and we'll ask if anyone can volunteer a venue
    ... if not there, where? If not then, when?

MWABP

    Jo: Web App BP:

    <francois> [11]latest MWABP draft

      [11] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090917

    Adam: pubbed new draft yesterday. Ta to Bruce for comments, ta also
    to Eduardo:
    ... Hope to vote for Last Call? Strong objections? Eduardo raised a
    canvas/ SVG question.

    <jo> [12]Eduardo's comments

      [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0066.html

    Eduardo: am not sure whether lack of DOM in canvas isn;t as
    important as functionality. Perhaps mention that SVG has more
    functionality; 2nd: note on performance, but DOM isn't only
    comparison point

    Adam: did straw poll in Google. The main difference is DOM/ lack of.
    Don't feel I have enough info to give a recommendation

    Adam: canvas is faster, SVG isn;t useful for making a reflection

    Adam will add about accessibility

    <francois> [There does not seem to be a real BP that we can
    recommend for real about Canvas vs. SVG in the end. Shouldn't we
    either remove the BP altogether or leave it as "use one or the
    other, these are cool technologies"? ]

    <PhilA2> brucel: I don't know whether we can have a BP on wich
    SVG/Canvass you should use, but I'm not averse to it

    <PhilA2> .. I think the matter of the DOM is important, not from
    performance, but if you're trying to give info then canvass doesn't
    conform to WAI stuff

    <francois> [On top of this, note that Canvas is HTML5. This normally
    puts a dependence on HTML5. ]

    <PhilA2> .. we can say "remember accessibility" or "remember that
    canvass isn't accessible"

    <PhilA2> Adam: OK

    ADam: think we should just say canvas is good for decorative stuff

    <PhilA2> Jo: So change is that we should add a comment that canvass
    is only suitable for decorative images as it's not accessible

    Bruce: ... or for supplementing info that is also on the page in an
    accessible form elsewhere

    Adam: Eduardo, what specific changes do you want?

    Eduardo: if we have DOM, accessibility, performance.. do we need to
    say SVG is inherently richer for vector graphics?

    Adam: disagree: DOM/ canvas is more fundamental interface so you can
    do same in canvas as you can in SVG

    Jo: we need to get this sorted before LC

    <EdC> fine with me.

    Adam: I'll add the thing on accessibility as I know what to say

    <Zakim> francois, you wanted to mention the HTML5 dependence point

    Francois: I know you love it when I mention that canvas depends on
    html5 - This does look as a dependence on HTML5, and in that case we
    can't move to rec without html5 also becoming a rec. (Or can we?)

    Jo: we're not building in a dependence on html5

    Francois: if group is confident that it's OK, I am fine with that.

    adam should we say "consider options for dynamic graphics" instead?

    Francois: maybe Jo's right; we're not building in a real dependence

    Jo: let's out it this way ... erm ... is this suitably caveated with
    "where canvas is available..."?

    Adam: yup

    JO: next point, please

    Adam: Eduardo requested we add sth about media types as we caveat
    against them but don't mention them elsewhere. Will make change Ed
    suggested

    Jo: anything else?

    bruce: WFM

    Jo: we'll give everyone 1 week to read + inwardly digest. We'll have
    an editor's meeting about this doc as it's been a while

    <PhilA2> I'm happy to come and lend a hand if that helps

    Adam to organise, as editor

    Action on Adam

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

    Action Adam organise editor's meeting

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1010 - Organise editor's meeting [on Adam
    Connors - due 2009-09-29].

    Phil: post 11 a.m., please

    <francois> [Note that schedule is tight, and we should publish a
    last call ASAP]

Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices

    Jo: BP 1.5, floor to Kai

    <PhilA2> Latest version is at
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/dra
    fts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090922a.htm

      [13] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090922a.htm

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial
    adjustments MWBP WG requests the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG
    Note.

    Kai: doc fairly stable. How long will doc be open? when will we call
    it done?
    ... it has weird layout in firefox for me. Anyone else?
    ... I'll check it and clean it

    Jo: anticipate need for typo proofing, but we've been round block.
    PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments
    MWBP WG requests the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note.

    <EdC> +1

    Jo: tarting up typos within next day?

    Bruce: concur
    ... concur

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial
    adjustments MWBP WG requests [after Thursday] the publication of [BP
    1.5] as a WG Note

    <francois> +1

    <Kai> +1

    <miguel> +1

    <EdC> +1

    <jo> +1

    Jo: congrats, Kai

    Kai: thank you all

    <PhilA2> Thanks to Kai for sticking with this through thick and thin

    RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG
    requests [after Thursday] the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note

    PhilA: legged it. "Bye"

CT draft 1t

    <jo> [14]EdC's Comments on CT

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html

    <francois> [15]CT Guidelines draft 1t

      [15] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090921

    EdC: 1st thing: user preferences. What happens when proxy don't
    assume that user wants the server's proposed representation without
    modification?

    <francois> [16]User selection of Restructured Experience

      [16] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090921#sec-user-selection

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.htm
    l [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1011 - Amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.htm
    l [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html

    Jo: on 4.2.9, you want that to move to mandatory?

    EdC: yup. Jo: let's find it

    <jo>
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.htm
    l

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html

    Jo: I don't think the resolution was clear; anyway this is marginal.
    There was lots of discussion: is it practical or not. So can we
    leave it non-mandatory?

    EdC: you're changing the resolution from "should not" to "may"...?

    EdC CTG guidelines: 4.2.9

    Jo: you're right

    EdC: I also added some references

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to move text per eduardo's comment ACTION-989
    [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.htm
    l [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1012 - Move text per eduardo's comment
    ACTION-989
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.htm
    l [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html

    Jo: Yay! x-headers. Francois..?

    Can someone else scribe?

    Francois: .. we're implicitly telling ppl that we can use any header
    they want, but they can't

    Jo: RFC2616 allows "extensions" that follow http syntax. So we
    should say nothing. We need to register the ones that we add to a
    formal doc
    ... if you want to use an extension header you don';t need to
    register it with anyone.
    ... shall we note that we've registered the headers we're using ?

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to add a note that the X-Headers have been
    provisionally registered [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1013 - Add a note that the X-Headers have
    been provisionally registered [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].

    <EdC> So what is the message you want to convey???

    Jo: we'll note we've provisionally registered the x-headers; we're
    not recommending or prohibiitng doing this

    SeanP: I don't read it saying you can add anything you want
    ... we're not recommeding it

    Jo: happy to remain silent on the issue

    EdC: can't prevent ppl adding their own fields; if this has impact
    on CT Proxies we might want to prohibit it. We should say, for
    proper operation of CT proxies these are the only extra headers you
    need.

    Jo: have actioned myself 10.13

    <inserted> Scribe: EdC

    <brucel> cheers, EdC

    <jo> [25]Outstanding Points ref CT from Jo

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0058.html

    Jo: tackled a number of editorial issues, and identified some
    remaining points to deal with in his message.

    Conformance statement: Francois has been circulating a revised
    version of the ICS.

    <francois> [26]new version of ICS

      [26] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090921

    Jo: Francois mentioned an issue regarding the conformance statement
    of mailing/making available ICS.
    ... is going to interlink CTG and ICS and put them in the same
    directory.

    Francois: always assumed that both documents would go along. This
    would entail some constraints regarding revisions of TR (i.e.
    mistakes cannot be fixed immediately, there is a heavy process).
    However, both documents are incomplete without each other.

    Jo: should we resolve to publish ICS as an official document.

    Francois: people please check that nothing is missing (no normative
    statement left out). Give opinion about the introduction to the ICS.

    Jo: let us give one week to review the ICS, and elevate the document
    to LC status on the next call.
    ... lingering issue is the definition of "same origin".
    ... without a precise definition, no meaningful test suite.
    ... there is one definition proposed for HTML5 -- but this
    introduces a dependency to a draft that may change...

    Francois: copy and paste from HTML5 is quite detailed stuff.

    Francois: remain silent on the topic?

    <SeanP> Same domain policy from Mozilla:
    [27]https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Same_origin_policy_for_JavaScri
    pt

      [27] 
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Same_origin_policy_for_JavaScript

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We remain silent on the meaning of
    same-origin

    Francois: we cannot be more precise at the moment.

    <francois> +1

    -1

    <jo> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <francois> [ Wikipedia : The term "origin" is defined using the
    domain name, application layer protocol, and (in most browsers) TCP
    port of the HTML document running the script. ]

    Francois: same origin is actually formally defined: domain name +
    application layer protocol + port. Same origin policy is more
    complicated.

    SeanP: Firefox uses the same definition as in Wikipedia.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WE define same orgin to mean matching
    protocol, domain and port (put suitably in RFC 3986-ese)

    <francois> [same origin = same protocol, same host name, and same
    port]

    <SeanP> +1

    <francois> +1

    +1

    <DKA> +1

    RESOLUTION: WE define same orgin to mean matching protocol, domain
    and port (put suitably in RFC 3986-ese)

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to insert above definition of same origin in the
    document [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1014 - Insert above definition of same
    origin in the document [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].

    Question: aren't we implicitly (and abstractly) defining a "same
    origin policy" with the following text: Proxies must preserve
    security between requests for domains that are not same-origin in
    respect of cookies and scripts.

    Jo: answers to LC are required before releasing a new LC.

    Francois: we must review the answers already drafted.

    Francois: the reviewing process must be distributed.

    <francois> [29]Last Call comments tracker

      [29] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

    Jo: a possibly quick way is to offload the work to Jo.

    Francois: there are some resolutions to take for some answers as yet
    unfinalized.

    Francois: resolutions have been taken for the answers to the last LC
    anyway. Going through them will uncover those that are yet to be
    done.

    Jo: what to do about the CT landscape document?

    Francois: we still reference it in the CTG.

    <brucel> Bruce needs to leave; action from last week: we have no
    tests we can offer; sorry

    <DKA> yum.

    <brucel> next week, gang. bye

    Francois: nothing in principle prevents us from publishing as a
    "working group note".

    <jo> ACTION: jo to recommend to group what to do with landscape doc
    [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1015 - Recommend to group what to do with
    landscape doc [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].

    SeanP: the document was initially to state what was to be addressed.

    Jo: however, the CTG has evolved, so the landscape document might no
    longer be entirely consistent with the CTG.
    ... issues to close.

    <jo> ISSUE-294?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-294 -- All known methods to improve the situation
    of consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well
    as mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as
    examples for improving potential https content transformation if it
    is being used -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/294

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/294

Issues and actions

    <francois> +1 to closing

    <francois> close ISSUE-294

    <trackbot> ISSUE-294 All known methods to improve the situation of
    consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as
    mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as
    examples for improving potential https content transformation if it
    is being used closed

    <jo> close ISSUE-294

    <trackbot> ISSUE-294 All known methods to improve the situation of
    consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as
    mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as
    examples for improving potential https content transformation if it
    is being used closed

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

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

    <francois> close ACTION-928

    <trackbot> ACTION-928 Progress registration of the X- headers
    irrespective his personal distate for the subject closed

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

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

    Jo: will take the work on 956.

    <francois> ACTION-969?

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

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

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

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-969 and thank Chaals most
    unctuously for this splendid contribution

    <SeanP> +1

    <jo> close ACTION-969

    <trackbot> ACTION-969 forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to
    group closed

    Jo: Francois will inform us about a test suite.

    <francois> ACTION-984?

    <trackbot> ACTION-984 -- Jo Rabin to (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 -- due 2009-06-23
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/984

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/984

    <francois> close ACTION-984

    <trackbot> 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 closed

    <francois> close ACTION-988

    <trackbot> ACTION-988 Proposed text for separate section based on
    EdC's ACTION-981 and taking into account his refinement of that at
    [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.htm
    l closed

      [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html

    <francois> close ACTION-989

    <trackbot> ACTION-989 Enact resolution on included resources
    identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above) closed

    <francois> close ACTION-990

    <trackbot> ACTION-990 Reference the conformance mailing list in the
    ct doc closed

    <francois> ACTION-992?

    <trackbot> ACTION-992 -- Jo Rabin to add the text proposed in
    resolution above on 4.1.5.5 -- due 2009-07-07 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/992

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/992

    <francois> close ACTION-992

    <trackbot> ACTION-992 Add the text proposed in resolution above on
    4.1.5.5 closed

    <francois> ACTION-993?

    <trackbot> ACTION-993 -- Jo Rabin 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 -- due 2009-07-07 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/993

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/993

    <francois> close ACTION-993

    <trackbot> 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 closed

    <francois> ACTION-996?

    <trackbot> ACTION-996 -- Jo Rabin to add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying
    to avoid inserting too many negatives, not, not -- due 2009-07-14 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/996

      [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/996

    <francois> close ACTION-996

    <trackbot> ACTION-996 Add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid
    inserting too many negatives, not, not closed

    <francois> close ACTION-928

    <trackbot> ACTION-928 Progress registration of the X- headers
    irrespective his personal distate for the subject closed

    <francois> [ ACTION-959 can be abandoned ]

    Francois: about test suites. The only thing needed at this point are
    collection of tests. Exhorting participants to provide input. The
    test suite is not required for a LC, but will be needed afterwards.

    SeanP: will provide information next week.

    <francois> ACTION-959?

    <trackbot> ACTION-959 -- François Daoust to enact the resolution on
    XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec -- due 2009-09-02 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/959

      [40] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/959

    <francois> close ACTION-959

    <trackbot> ACTION-959 Enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1
    revision - when it reaches rec closed

    <francois> [no way to do that action... ]

    Jo: will remind Dan about his actions and issues.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to add a note that the X-Headers have been
    provisionally registered [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments
    [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.htm
    l [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to insert above definition of same origin in the
    document [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to move text per eduardo's comment ACTION-989
    [45]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.htm
    l [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: jo to recommend to group what to do with landscape doc
    [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

      [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html
      [45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 15:58:03 UTC

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