See also: IRC log
dka: outlines todays agenda...
<edm> cnnot get thru zakim ...
<jo> [no progress in last week]
<dom> ACTION-608?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-608 -- Daniel Appelquist to recruit a TF lead for CT -- due 2007-12-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/608
dka: can anyone give us a run
down of what been happening in CT TF?
... no chair found yet
... hopefully be next week we'll have found someone
<dom> (action-608 now due on 20071220)
dka: anyone want to be the
chair?
... not much to update about the checker tf
dka: was speaking at conference yesterday - there is lots of interest / awareness of mobile in dev community and people are becoming more aware of MOK
<dom> ACTION-610?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-610 -- Daniel Appelquist to check with Kai if he's interested in leading the mobileOK pro TF and asking him to prepare a TF charter if so -- due 2007-12-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/610
<edm> More on LeWeb3 conference in Paris at http://www.leweb3.com/
dka: now onto MOK Pro TF...
... do we meet criteria for a TF?
jo: kai was volunteered sa chair and to draft charter
<Kai> ACTION: Kai to write a charter for mobileOK Pro TF by January [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-612 - Write a charter for mobileOK Pro TF by January [on Kai Scheppe - due 2007-12-20].
<dom> [I'll close ACTION-610 as a result]
<jo> TF Rules
<dom> trackbot-ng, close action-610
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-610 Check with Kai if he's interested in leading the mobileOK pro TF and asking him to prepare a TF charter if so closed
dka: not much to report at moment on MOK Pro
<dom> ACTION-611?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-611 -- Daniel Appelquist to check with Shawn and Alan on getting current doc as FPWD -- due 2007-12-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/611
dka: document not yet ready for
1st public WD
... sean working on additional content for accessibility
document
<dom> [I think this closes ACTION-611]
<dom> trackbot-ng, ACTION-611 closed
<jo> [nothing to add]
<dom> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-611
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-611 Check with Shawn and Alan on getting current doc as FPWD closed
<dom> [I won't be available either on Dec 20, 27, Jan 3]
dka: suggest we cancel call on 27th
<jo> +1 t cancelling 20 and 27 Dec
<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: calls on Dec 20 and 27 canceled
<dom> RESOLUTION: calls on Dec 20 and 27 canceled
<Kai> yipee
<dom> CR exit criteria:
<dom> * existence of ten highly visible mobileOK-compliant Web pages representing a number of different applications;
<dom> * existence of a checker that checks each aspect of each test specified in this document;
<dom> * existence of a test suite to verify the correct operation of mobileOK checkers.
<dom> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20071130/
dom: we need to define how to achieve our CR exit criteria
<dom> dom: we're ok for the checker, and I've started to work on the test suite
<dom> ... but we need someone to look at finding the 10 highly visible web pages
dka: we need to find some MOK compliant web pages
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to discuss new good standing rules and to say that dotMobi can find some
<dom> ACTION: Jo to start collecting mobileOK web pages for mobileOK CR - due January 10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-613 - start collecting mobileOK web pages for mobileOK CR [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-01-10].
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to discuss new good standing rules
jo: we've discussed some revised
good standing rules
... a large number of members are not attending calls /
contributing
... new rules are...
<dom> Draft Good standing rules
jo: 1. non-attendance a meeting
within 3 weeks of joining group
... 2. sending regrets for 3 consecutiive weeks
... 3. don't respond to surveys
4. non-attendance for 6 weeks
<Zakim> PhilA, you wanted to ask about current list of participants
<dom> Participants in the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group
<PhilA> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=37584&public=1
dom: good standing tracking will
be automated
... bad standing will not be automated
<PhilA> I have a quick one
phila: trying to organise a joint
w3c / gsma event in march
... should cover POWDER and MWBP
dka: been planning a mobile web developer event in london
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/overdue Overdue action items
close ACTION-596
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-596 Encourage group participants to re-register themselves or have their AC reps re-register them for group membership in two weeks. closed
close ACTION-595
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-595 Encourage group participants to re-register themselves or have their AC reps re-register them for group membership in two weeks. closed
close ACTION-597
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-597 Formulate a poll on what exactly people are planning on doing with mobileOK Pro, beyond issuing a mandate (potentially) closed
<matt> dom++
close ACTION-598
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-598 Add to the poll people's intention to participate in a MobileOK Pro Cram Session including dates for doing this closed
ACTION-588?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-588 -- Jo Rabin to with Dan to raise this document at next HCG meeting informing them of our intentions and soliciting input -- due 2007-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/588
DKA: it wasn't discussed on the HCG call, but I included it in my report to the HCG
Dom: due updated to January 10, will have to be updated for next HCG call presumably
close ACTION-601
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-601 Send email chasing to people to renew closed
ACTION-592?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-592 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named -- due 2007-11-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/592
Ed: we'll have a decision on this hopefully next week
<inserted> ScribeNick: drooks
dka: brian has indicated it looks ok
dom: how do we get this document
started?
... do ed and brian need to put together a 1st draft?
dka: think we need more group input before 1st draft
ed: 1st step should be defining scope, this can be a group effort
dka: we discused this in boston...
<dom> [I just created ISSUE-229 as a result of this discussion: "Scope of mobile web applications best practices"]
ed: boston minutes are good start but needs further input
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
<francois> ACTION-581?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-581 -- Jo Rabin to to promote discussion on the list and then produce editors draft based on discussion -- due 2007-10-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/581
trackbot-ng, close ACTION-581
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-581 to promote discussion on the list and then produce editors draft based on discussion closed
trackbot-ng, close ACTION-586
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-586 Raise ISSUE on setting criteria for group sign off on mobileOK checker once the task force says it is done with the work closed
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/228 ISSUE-228 What Criteria for Checker Approval?
ACTION-530?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-530 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to draft a page on context and its effect on content authors etc -- due 2007-11-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/530
-> http://www.w3.org/2007/07/20-bpwg-minutes.html#action02 Minutes where that action-530 was created
Ed: let's pretend this action never existed
Jo: I think it would be useful to have such a document, actually
[I've just updated the due date to early January]
ACTION-593?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-593 -- Kai Scheppe to write a summary of preliminary work to be done for this working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications -- due 2007-11-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/593
Kai: thought I had done it, but
don't see anything linked from it
... will look back at it
ACTION-594?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-594 -- Daniel Appelquist to coordinate mobileOK Basic advancement, probably starting with a teleconf -- due 2007-11-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/594
<PhilA> it was going to be a call with you, me and Marie Claire I think
<PhilA> and kai, I assume
ACTION-594 date updated
<francois> ACTION-599?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-599 -- Alan Chuter to look at mailing list for sharing information between BP and EO -- due 2007-11-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/599
DKA: the mailing list exists (the TF mailing list), but we haven't put it to use
Alan: perhaps having a shared
mailing list isn't that necessary
... I can serve as a bridge between the two groups
DKA: we probably don't need it
trackbot-ng, close ACTION-599
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-599 Look at mailing list for sharing information between BP and EO closed
ACTION-602?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-602 -- Jo Rabin to raise an issue on how useful this spec will be without HTTP extensions of some form -- due 2007-11-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/602
Jo: I raised that issue
(ISSUE-227)
close ACTION-602
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-602 Raise an issue on how useful this spec will be without HTTP extensions of some form closed
ACTION-603?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-603 -- Jo Rabin to find out how to liaise with HTTP NG work -- due 2007-12-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/603
Jo: sent Mark Nottingham a long email, but didn't get a reply
<PhilA> I think you just join the BISHTTP list
<PhilA> I was on it for a short time, it's open
Jo: Dom gave me another contact that I haven't contacted yet
<PhilA> They had a f2f in Vancouver recently I think
<PhilA> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/
Dom: BISHTTP being presumably the list of the rechartered IETF WG that works on revising HTTP
PhilA: the only requirement to
join the WG is to join the mailing list, actually
... pretty active mailing list
... it's the old HTTP gang again
Dom: they're "only" fixing HTTP 1.1, not creating HTTP 1.2
<PhilA> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/0108.html
PhilA: indeed, they won't be
adding new features
... they have a very restricted charter
DKA: how does that affect our ability to put mobileOK hints in HTTP headers?
PhilA: I don't think they will
help - the charter forbids them to define new headers,
IIRC
... it's unclear how this affects the status of promulgating
the Link: header
... I don't know that the IETF process is to push an internet
draft as RFC
<jo> [the CT group just wants to add some values for the Cache-Control header]
-> http://www.mnot.net/blog/2007/12/12/stale Mark Nottingham's on extending the Cache-Control header
ACTION-606 and ACTION-607 marked as PendingReview
[discussions around ISSUE-222]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html TAG Finding on Alternative Representations
<scribe> ACTION: Jo to restart discussion on the TAG finding (ISSUE-222) on the public mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-614 - Restart discussion on the TAG finding (ISSUE-222) on the public mailing list [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-12-20].
(ISSUE-227)
ISSUE-227?
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-227 -- How Useful will the CT Guidelines Doc be, without extensions to HTTP? -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/227
(13 messages exchanged on this topic in the TF)
Jo: there is mild support for
going beyond Cache-Control and Vary
... my own view (which is not supported) is that if we only say
so, we may as well have said 3 months ago
DKA: I think we need to say something else
Jo: if it's clear than something
less brute-force than "no-transform" is needed (e.g. to allow
compression by an intermediate, or adapting the image format,
but don't relay my stuff out)
... then there is a need for something else
... the problem with no-transform in particular is [...]?
kai: are you going to give instructions on how to handle specific parts of the content?
Jo: no, the idea on the table is to day that "Cache-control: no-transform, ..." has a fail-safe interpretation for non-conforming proxies
Kai: I'm wondering if we really
have to worry about non-conforming proxies
... and not deal with those that don't follow the rules
Jo: I agree-ish
... but there is a community agreement on how to fail safely
these instructions
... is it in scope for our charter to invent new values for the
cache-control header?
... it's clear we wouldn't want to invent new HTTP
headers
... but having modifiers on the existing values might be
OK-ish
q,
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: new values for cache control headers is not new technology.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will take over the IETF.
<Kai> +1
<Zakim> Kai, you wanted to say that I think caching already understood and used badly enough. We do not need to make it more complicated but should focus on correct usage of what exists
<PhilA> Happy Christmas everyone
<jo> [and hanukkah]
<drooks> bye
<PhilA> bye