00:04:26 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 00:04:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-irc 00:04:33 Zakim has joined #bpwg 00:05:32 Meeting: BPWG F2F 2008-03-04 Day2 00:05:47 Chair: Dan, Jo 00:07:07 Bryan has joined #bpwg 00:07:51 DKA has joined #bpwg 00:07:53 http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w&hl=en 00:08:02 soonho has joined #bpwg 00:08:56 MartinJ has joined #bpwg 00:09:07 SeanP has joined #bpwg 00:11:11 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080303 00:11:16 jcantera has joined #bpwg 00:12:14 chaals has joined #bpwg 00:12:52 Meeting: MWBP 00:13:01 Zakim, this meeting runs over midnight 00:13:01 I don't understand 'this meeting runs over midnight', chaals 00:13:09 RRSAgent, this meeting runs over midnight 00:13:09 I'm logging. I don't understand 'this meeting runs over midnight', chaals. Try /msg RRSAgent help 00:13:24 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 00:14:34 rob has joined #bpwg 00:14:39 q? 00:14:41 Present: Chaals, RobF, SeanP, Francois, Bryan, Jo, Dan, Pontus, Martin, Sunghan, Soonho 00:14:55 Chair: Dan 00:15:04 DKA: Thre h 00:15:19 s/Thre h/There has been a bit of dribbling.../ 00:15:25 Present+ Jonathan 00:15:52 RRSAgent, draft minutes 00:15:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html chaals 00:16:10 rrsagent, set log member 00:16:43 Agenda: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w 00:17:02 Topic: Agenda waffle 00:17:10 We start on BP2... 00:17:20 DKA: We need to spend some time on issues, actions and coffee 00:17:32 JR: 2 1/5 hours on BP2? 00:17:49 Topic: BP 2 00:18:24 BS: I was making changes as we were going yesterday. The major things not yet there are the ETRI input and the references to other "best Practice" documents. 00:18:59 ... most changes are in section 5. I tried to use a low-tech way of saying things where possible. Some needs more wordsmithing, but would be good to go through and look at what was there. 00:19:30 Pontus has joined #bpwg 00:20:31 [Bryan shows the list of things that are indicative of what "Web Applications" are] 00:22:36 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080303++&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080304 Changes to BP 2 since yesterday 00:23:29 JonathanJ has joined #bpwg 00:24:35 Topic: BP2 5.5 00:24:57 BS: These things will need to be reflected back as requirements in the earlier section on objectives 00:25:18 ... there are a bunch of things to do with efficient use of network. I already had a section on conserve network traffic. 00:26:12 ... 5.5.2 has changed to be more general. 00:26:31 JR: The notion of HTTP compression needs to be clarified 00:26:51 ... HTTP says you can use gzip, so do... 00:27:35 q+ 00:28:02 CMN: Gzip has a cost in terms of memory/processing, so we need to show this is valuable or raise an issue on it. 00:28:28 JR: We want to say "use HTTP to note that you compressed (and how)" 00:29:05 DKA: We may also want to acknowledge the work of EXI (efficient XML interchange). Without requiring the use of EXI (which is not supported) we should encurage its use. 00:29:17 q+ to say we shouldn't say that until we have implementation proof 00:29:22 ack DKA 00:29:54 ... EXI has been designed to minimise cost of compression 00:30:27 BS: I have explanatory text that explains the mechanisms, and that it needs to be balanced against resource usage etc. 00:30:32 ack cha 00:30:32 chaals, you wanted to say we shouldn't say that until we have implementation proof 00:31:13 CMN: EXI cannot be anything more than an informative reference if we don't have an implementation... 00:31:31 JR: BS pointed out that tokenisation is an efficient approach to compression. 00:32:03 BS: Or WBXML - widely used in WAP1. 00:32:21 DKA: The thing behind WMLC? 00:32:24 BS: Yes 00:32:52 ... so do you compress at application level or transport level? 00:33:07 DKA: Does that mean WBXML is supported by browsers that support WML? 00:33:43 Action: Chaals to check if Opera supports WBXML in and/or out of its WML support 00:33:43 Created ACTION-688 - Check if Opera supports WBXML in and/or out of its WML support [on Charles McCathieNevile - due 2008-03-11]. 00:34:04 BS: We can reference EXI? 00:34:10 JR: Non-normatively 00:34:39 ... It is probably worht calling out application level and transport level compression. 00:34:42 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-best-practices-20071219/ 00:36:09 BS: can we say "and other proprietary techniques" 00:36:19 CMN: No, those are not relevant tothe Web 00:36:34 JR: We need to say "if the device supports it" 00:37:31 s/tothe/to the/ 00:37:49 CMN: We should be supporting widely-used and standard mechanisms - pro gzip because it is deployed and standard, EXI perhaps because we expect it to be good, not OBML because you haven't got a sec for it anyway... 00:37:55 s/worht /worth / 00:38:24 DKA: Agree. Think we can do that by ordering the way we talk abut these. When talking about XHR, do we need to make specific mention about compression for those types of transactions? 00:39:39 CMN: XHR doesn't currently have a way of gzipping AFAIK, although there was a request to WebAPI at one point to build an API for this purpose. 00:39:39 ACTION: Chaals to check XHR compression 00:39:39 Created ACTION-689 - Check XHR compression [on Charles McCathieNevile - due 2008-03-11]. 00:39:56 DKA: Isn't it possible to set this though XHR? 00:40:02 CMN: Believe not - will check. 00:40:16 BS: Will add a note clarifying that it may not always be possible to compress data. 00:42:04 Seungyun has joined #bpwg 00:42:26 BS: In the content, I added some stuff to clarify when it does/doesn't help to make transactions. 00:42:38 Present+ Seungyun 00:42:57 JR: There is something that could be said about having regard to the type of connections available. Question is whether you can determine that 00:43:06 q+ 00:43:28 DKA: That's something about access to the device context at application level. You can infer it, but you don't know yet. 00:43:40 JR: There is probably something we can look at. 00:43:54 ack Bryan 00:43:54 ack Bryan 00:44:19 BS: The objective in OMA is to create a set of properties including bearer awareness, that should be available through DCCI 00:44:22 Seungyun_ has joined #bpwg 00:45:37 q+ 00:45:59 DKA: BP1 left the representation to the reader as an exercise. There are issues like cost of roaming that will continue - could be useful to suggest that you allow users to set the amount of access by some user-provided information 00:46:24 JR: It's a nice idea. It was watered down in BP1 on the basis that it wasn't actually practised, ergo couldn't be a best practice. 00:46:54 DKA: There is a preference in iPhone that says "don't use data when roaming". I wonder if we could give guidance to application developers to replicate that function? 00:47:03 JR: Think we should try to put some pointer in. 00:48:48 q? 00:48:53 ack 00:48:54 BS: The networks that are being used is information available to content providers, via cntext information that is knowable. 00:48:58 ack b 00:49:18 q? 00:50:10 ... e.g. we can figure out how fast the network is running and we forward that to the content provider 00:50:21 JR: So it seems there is some information already... 00:50:34 q? 00:50:36 ... so there should be something that goes in there. 00:50:46 BS: [reads some example text] 00:51:28 Topic: 5.5.3 - Push 00:51:59 BS: Push is widely deployed in networks. As a way to do event-based delivery instead of polling you could use it to minimise network traffic 00:52:29 CMN: It's in WAP browsers 00:52:50 BS: Almost every phone browser is a WAP browser, and they implemented push 00:53:31 CMN: Push isn't in "Web" browsers - full internet as opposed to WAP browsers 00:54:00 JR: There are two cases here... [???] 00:54:28 BS: There is a problem of education. There is no generic way to bind SMS to an application, and that would be a proprietary implementation detail. 00:54:38 JR: ..."if the device supports it". 00:55:06 BS: The only standard method I know of is MIDP registry. 00:55:33 Pontus2 has joined #bpwg 00:55:44 JR: To my mind there is a distinction between WAP push and bindings on information pushed to an application. Maybe more information is needed... 00:56:03 s/[???]/on the one hand WAP push and on the other hand application binding to incoming SMS to generate event based behavior 00:56:47 BS: We haven't said that MIDP-based browsers are not in scope... 00:57:29 CMN: No. But I think it is clear that MIDP-based stuff is not readily within the scope of Web stuff - it is a particualr platform, in the saemway tht ActiveX relies ona aprticular platform, rather than being a general Web technology. 00:57:49 JR: Think we need some more research to look at this... would someone like to take an Action? 00:57:53 s/ona aprticular/on a particular/ 00:58:00 [pregnant silence] 00:58:33 s/in the saemway tht ActiveX/in the same way that ActiveX/ 00:58:45 ACTION: JR to raise Issue as to availability of binding to incoming SMS from script 00:58:45 Created ACTION-690 - Raise Issue as to availability of binding to incoming SMS from script [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11]. 00:58:48 BS: Overall intention of this is to bring awareness to the differentiated delivery methods brought about by push technology. I think it is in our interest here to promote push technology however it is implemented - it does have a number of advantages. 00:59:15 ... we can consider other possible approaches. 01:00:08 Topic: BP2 5.5.4 minimise application size 01:00:47 BS: Added a bunch of text here 01:01:13 JR: Need to avoid repeating BP1. I was dubious about Adam's point about nested selectors, overuse of generic class and so on. 01:01:52 JR: In respectof the technique Adam suggested, how widely recognised is it? 01:02:26 q+ 01:02:32 ack mart 01:02:41 ... it is a disaster for maintainability if your content changes shape, and requires support for CSS 2... 01:03:03 MJ: About half of Volantis code is about optimising CSS - we consider it implemented best practice. 01:03:25 JR: Curious about how you deal with changes to structure and the impacton CSS 01:03:46 MJ: We do some analysis, but we are essentially generating the CSS anyway. The benefits tend to outweigh the costs. 01:03:54 ... but I do take the point. 01:04:30 JR: Seems that some element of the benefit needs to be balanced against the cost of maintainability. 01:05:33 JR: As long as you are at th top of the class structure, things are fine. 01:05:46 DKA: Sounds like we ought to include "something"... 01:05:59 JR: Yes, we seem to be coming to recommend this, but with caveats. 01:06:22 BS: Should optimisation be done during delivery as opposed to up-front? It seems that reduces the cost.... 01:06:47 JR: Yes, I think that is a good technique to use. 01:07:55 BS: There is also the use of markup, rather than script 01:08:27 CMN: Think that this si a seperate BP about not playing with the DOM more than necessary 01:08:29 q+ 01:09:04 JR: This is a specific technique for CSS, and something about dynamic changes to HTML. Leet's split these out 01:09:12 ack chaals 01:11:07 RF: Didn't Aron have a counter-case? 01:11:46 CMN: I think there is an edge-case (table processing?) that needs to be noted in a caveat 01:11:57 q+ 01:12:01 Topic: BP2 5.5.5 Minimise external script files 01:12:17 BS: Seemed to relate to both network impact and overall size. 01:12:35 ... impactis data use and service latency 01:12:58 JR: Should be balanced against the possibility of caching script files across pages. 01:13:11 ack MartinJ 01:13:37 MJ: There is a danger reading the text taht people decide to put the script files into page content, destroying the ability to cache the scripts 01:13:49 q+ 01:13:55 q? 01:14:11 BS: Caching diminishes the ovrhead problem this is trying to deal with, right? 01:14:52 ack cha 01:15:11 CMN: Don't we have this in BP 1? 01:15:21 JR: We did this in reference to CSS. 01:16:05 DKA: I think we are going to run up against a lot of things where we are elaborating BP1. I think that's fine. 01:16:39 CMN: So we should put specific pointers back to things we are elaborating from BP1. 01:17:23 JR: We need to discuss terminology. "main page" is not terminology consistent with BP1. 01:17:32 ... Where we refer to resources, etc. 01:17:47 BS: I have been trying to use common language. 01:17:49 q+ to make a note about readibility 01:18:05 JR: There is a decision to be made. Consistency with our existing teminology has value. 01:18:27 DKA: It is important to get the terminology right. We produced a document that was too hard to read, and we should be looking to do better. 01:19:09 q+ 01:19:10 ... We really need to keep the target audiencein mind, and not maintain terminology from BP1 as sacred. 01:19:14 q+ 01:19:27 JR: If we have back references this needs to be clarified 01:19:29 ack dka 01:19:29 DKA, you wanted to make a note about readibility 01:19:30 ack DKA 01:19:31 ack bry 01:19:35 ack b 01:20:41 BS: In using the terminology like application, pulling focus away from presentation in a page as the model, we are inherently expecting the developer to stretch their though. As long as we explain up front what we mean, developers should understand and we should be able to use langauge as straightforward as possible. 01:21:02 ack c 01:21:06 JR: think we need to raise an issue on terminology. 01:22:10 q+ 01:22:35 ACTION: Dan to raise issue and start discussion on main page, external resources and so on 01:22:35 Created ACTION-691 - Raise issue and start discussion on main page, external resources and so on [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-03-11]. 01:22:39 ack fr 01:23:01 CMN: agree with Dan that clearer language is better than consistency with BP1. But we should point back to the ideas that are the same, and bring that out. 01:23:18 FD: Think it would be good to have more examples - bits of code that developers can look at. 01:23:26 JR: Now, rub some more salt in... 01:23:39 ... "When your mother and I... [scribe missed the rest]" 01:24:06 wonsuk has joined #BPWG 01:24:12 s/"When your mother and I... [scribe missed the rest]"/That was what the techniques wii was meant to do. It is a great idea, but you need the samples first/ 01:24:22 s/wii/wiki/ 01:24:42 DKA: We thought building a Wiki would mean we would get the code. We could take a strctured approach and action people more directly. 01:24:58 JR: All a great idea. Show me the content. 01:27:12 JR: Should cross-reference BP1 WHITE_SPACE 01:27:49 Topic: next... 01:28:13 BS: Slotted stuff that could go into various boxes into presentation 01:28:28 DKA: We should make time in the agenda to look at the stuff from Jonathan. 01:29:03 [BREAK] 01:30:26 MartinJ has joined #bpwg 01:40:08 chaals has joined #bpwg 01:41:24 chaals has joined #bpwg 01:46:30 scribe: rob 01:46:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html 01:46:34 chaals has joined #bpwg 01:46:38 scribenick: rob 01:48:15 chaals has joined #bpwg 01:50:04 Seungyun_ has joined #bpwg 01:50:46 Topic: BP2 contribution from Jonathan 01:53:10 Sunghan: about user-device interaction and experience 01:53:47 ... IP access from any other devices, as well as Web 01:54:37 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Feb/0105.html Sunghan input 01:55:29 ... eg using PC to send message to web that's received and replied to by a phone 01:56:45 ... "seamless" means service mobility between different networks 01:57:57 s/from Jonathan/from Sunghan/ 02:00:10 Dan: how can we take this input and distill it into statements of Best Practice? 02:00:24 q+ to note that it raises one web as part of scope 02:00:41 ... ie techniques to ensure seamless access to content? 02:01:07 Bryan: BP1 recognised thematic consistency 02:01:40 ... already contains "multi-screen" environment. 02:01:40 ack cha 02:01:40 chaals, you wanted to note that it raises one web as part of scope 02:01:56 ... but switching between them is perhaps new 02:02:44 Chaals: missing from current scope is "kind of things in scope are things that will work on the web" [as well as on the mobile] 02:03:04 s/scope/BP2 scope/ 02:03:36 Jo: to get into BP2 need "do this... don't do that..." statements 02:04:58 ... do you mean "make your content work in all contexts" or "design your content with all user interfaces in mind but don't ignore focus of content in different environments"? 02:05:58 Sunghan: I've scoped the problem, not proposed the solution techniques 02:06:08 q+ to note that something this implies is "allow people to identify themselves as being on different devices" 02:06:44 ... ie users will use PCs and mobiles together - not one or the other 02:06:53 q+ 02:06:55 q? 02:07:06 q+ 02:08:21 Jo: MWI steering council is asking why a seperate mobile apps WG? shouldn't we talk about how different interfaces work together? 02:08:53 ack c 02:08:53 chaals, you wanted to note that something this implies is "allow people to identify themselves as being on different devices" 02:08:59 ... so this is a good hint to address how users make use of different interfaces co-operatively 02:09:24 Seungyun_ has joined #bpwg 02:09:25 Chaals: allow users to identify themselves as the same person on different devices? 02:09:41 ack b 02:09:57 ... eg identity on Opera mini on a phone = Opera on a PC 02:10:27 Bryan: user with services on desktop PC and mobile is commonplace 02:11:04 ... a BP is that these views should synchronise in as timely a manner as possible 02:11:12 ack d 02:11:55 Dan: "thematic consistency" became an improtant BP1 principle 02:12:08 Seungyun__ has joined #bpwg 02:12:18 ... maybe this can be a guiding principle for BP2? 02:13:04 Jo: so can we turn it into actionable statements? 02:13:35 ... highlighting BP1's "3.1 One Web" statement 02:14:04 ... hints relationship betweem mobile-desktop-other screens 02:16:21 Sunghan: this BP1 paragraph highlights mobile-desktop relationship. BP2 could go further and consider more user interfaces. 02:17:07 Jo: need to constrain ourselves to mobile, eg we're not inventing new sync techniques 02:17:43 q+ 02:17:48 ... can we action Sunghan to develop some actionable statements? 02:18:06 ack b 02:19:07 Q? 02:20:07 Bryan: eg "these views should synchronise in as timely a manner as possible..." 02:20:36 action: seunyung to provide some example BP statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F 02:20:36 Sorry, couldn't find user - seunyung 02:20:53 Jo: Dan & I will ask in UWA WG as well 02:20:59 action: seunyun to provide some example BP statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F 02:20:59 Sorry, couldn't find user - seunyun 02:21:02 action: sunghan to provide some example BP statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F 02:21:02 Created ACTION-692 - Provide some example BP statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F [on Sunghan Kim - due 2008-03-11]. 02:21:12 Sunghan is not on the IRC 02:22:06 Dan: did we finish the discussion on URI protocol schemes yesterday? 02:22:28 ACTION: Dan to raise issue with Dave Raggett in UWA and see if they will take forward from where we leave off 02:22:28 Created ACTION-693 - Raise issue with Dave Raggett in UWA and see if they will take forward from where we leave off [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-03-11]. 02:22:40 Bryan: yes, WRT tel: scheme BP2 doc is updated 02:23:15 Jo: thanks Sunghan for the contribution 02:23:39 Topic: BP2 5.8.1 URI Schemes 02:24:31 s/updated/where we'll pick up now.../ 02:25:16 Bryan: actionable statements like "include the phone number as text in the link so you know who you're about to call" 02:25:52 q? 02:25:55 Dan: and "use tel: or wtai: URI scheme as an easy way to make phone calls" 02:26:08 q? 02:27:42 Jo: my view is a 2-step process: (1) write it in our language and then (2) express it in content-provider language 02:28:03 Seungyun__ has joined #bpwg 02:28:30 ... so rather see it as a high-level statement for now 02:28:51 Dan: surely we can narrow it down right now? 02:30:04 q+ 02:30:34 ack bry 02:30:47 q? 02:31:25 Bryan: maybe I went too far to specific actionable statements in this edit 02:32:14 ... perhaps a generic statement plus some specific examples (eg phone calls, send a message, ...) 02:32:35 q- 02:32:54 ack DKA 02:32:54 DKA, you wanted to suggest "actionable information" as a replacement for "things" 02:33:29 ["Use links like mailto:, tel: etc to help users perform relevant actions"] 02:33:50 "Remember that hyperlinks can be used to initiate device specific actions" 02:33:55 ["Use link types like... "] 02:33:58 Dan: suggest "actionable information" as a replacement for "things" - we're not talking about hyperlinks that go somewhere else but about links that pop-up some additional action 02:34:02 q+ 02:34:09 ack bry 02:34:11 ack b 02:34:22 Bryan: I'll propose some text to tweak 02:35:27 ["Use link types like mailto:, tel: etc to help users perform relevant actions"] 02:35:48 Jo: sould go back to doc review now 02:36:04 Dan: are Jose's imputs incorporated? 02:36:07 Bryan: yes 02:36:21 s/imputs/inputs/ 02:36:54 q+ 02:37:18 ack b 02:37:38 Topic: BP2 inspiration from developer.apple.com iPhone tips 02:38:21 Jo: ok, remember ideas are not copyright but the text is. 02:38:27 q+ 02:38:40 -> http://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/designingcontent.html Apple iPhone resources and tools for developing web apps 02:38:43 ack b 02:38:49 Dan: advice about the viewport and aspect ratio is useful 02:39:12 Bryan: does Apple have IPR on this? 02:39:26 Chaals: we're not sure 02:40:29 Jo: caution is advisable but Apple's guidelines are public advice, there's no license to sign 02:40:58 ... would prefer not to have to go to Apple for permission to publish BP2 02:42:26 Dan: advice about touch-screen might be useful 02:43:27 Rob: eg consider people will often use their thumbs, so "mouse" pointing isn't accurate 02:44:38 Dan: how about "think windowless"? 02:45:06 Bryan: BP2 has a bullet list of presentation and interaction issues that captures a lot of this 02:45:39 I think iphone's "windowsless" is good idea. 02:45:40 ... we can expand that list with stuff from here 02:46:35 Jo: can we get more general or do we need specific actionalble techniques? 02:46:57 zakim, ping dka in 5 mins 02:46:57 I don't understand 'ping dka in 5 mins', jo 02:47:09 ... if Bryan's already got the bullet list we'll continue on that line and see how it goes 02:50:00 Bryan: video encoding for bearer is relevant 02:50:40 Dan: and preparing alternatives in advance suitable for different bearers 02:50:46 q+ 02:50:59 ack b 02:52:15 Jo: caveat that you might not know about bearer 02:52:50 [break for lunch] 02:53:57 my contribution : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html 02:54:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 02:54:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html jo 02:55:39 chaals has left #bpwg 04:00:52 jcantera has joined #bpwg 04:07:06 chaals has joined #bpwg 04:30:03 scribe: SeanP 04:30:10 scribenick: SeanP 04:30:38 DKA: Spend a couple more minutes examining Apple doc. 04:31:15 Jo: Need to look at Jonathan's contribution. 04:32:05 ACTION: Dan to review apple document and summarise the parts that might be applicable to BP2 04:32:05 Created ACTION-694 - Review apple document and summarise the parts that might be applicable to BP2 [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-03-11]. 04:32:34 Topic: Jonathan's Contribution 04:32:43 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html Jonathan's Doc 04:36:12 please open attatched file : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/att-0003/mwi-200803-DDC-v1.0.doc 04:38:36 Seungyun has joined #bpwg 04:40:11 Jonathan: Proposal for ADC for BP2. 04:41:10 ...DDC is minimal delivery context for Mobile Web. 04:41:27 jcantera has joined #bpwg 04:41:32 ...[Goes through DDC requirements] 04:41:59 ...K-DDC is delivery context for K-MWBP. 04:42:52 ...MW2F K-Mobile OK is similar to W3C Mobile OK. 04:43:18 ...[Explains diagram in the document] 04:44:17 s/diagram/diagram that compares W3C and MW2F/ 04:44:58 ...We are developing K Mobile Best Practices 1.5 04:45:25 ...New advanced delivery context in Korea is KDDC 1.5 04:45:41 ...New features were needed for KDDC 04:46:18 ...[Describes table comparing DDC and KDDC 1.5] 04:48:43 ... Some of the new features: HTML 4.01, EUC-KR, PNG, 50K max page size, CSS 2.1, JavaScript 3, XHR, SSL, DOM stuff 04:49:37 DKA: We said before that we didn't want an ADC; doesn't mean that this isn't useful. Still need to have an ADC in mind when creating the new BPs. 04:50:05 q+ 04:50:14 ...Reason we said we didn't want an ADC is we didn't want to open ourselves up to criticism since it will become obsolete. 04:50:42 q? 04:50:45 ack r 04:50:49 q+ 04:51:00 Rob: Is this DDC 1.5 finished? 04:51:08 Jonathan: is finished 04:51:28 Rob: BPWG can nod to one that already exists. 04:52:11 Jo: We have had a problem with the perception of the DDC. We could have the same criticism of the ADC. 04:53:10 ...Point of DDC is the minimum delivery context for reasonable experience on the Web...Designed to avoid criticism. 04:53:25 ...Omission of PNG was a mistake. 04:53:55 ...If you know nothing else about the device, assume the DDC. 04:54:07 wonsuk has joined #BPWG 04:54:14 ...BP1 also says exploit device characteristics. 04:54:51 ...BP2 will explain how to exploit device capabilities. 04:55:21 ...Each one of the BP2's will say if this feature exists, exploit it in this way. 04:56:46 ...DDC is not about a point in time, etc. BP2 doesn't need that idea because you need to find out what the device is to exploit the capabilities. 04:57:26 ...What dependencies does the K DDC 1.5 have on the ADC? 04:58:13 DKA: What is in K BP 1.5 that goes beyond the BP 1.0 that we could put in BP2 that would be based on the ADC? 04:58:35 ...Are there BPs related to CSS 2 or JavaScript 3? 04:58:46 s/K DDC /K BP/ 04:58:58 Jonathan: We need more advanced features. 04:59:48 Seungyun 05:00:24 Jo: The assumption of BP2 is that you know what the device is. 05:00:47 ...You should have a way of find out what the capabilities of the device are. 05:01:30 q+ 05:01:33 ...Ex: for the tel: URI we will find out whether the device supports it before using it. 05:02:15 ...Wasn't an easy decision to drop DDC, but once it was done it made sense. 05:02:20 ack br 05:02:31 ack seung 05:02:31 s/DDC/ADC/ 05:02:35 Bryan: There is nothing in the DDC that says that HTTPS is not supported. 05:03:01 ...We have a DC context variability section in BP2. 05:03:31 Seungyun: Is there any relationship between DDC and BP2? 05:03:47 ... Won't have ADC in future? 05:04:15 ...What kind of DDC in BP2? 05:04:43 Jo: We haven't got consensus yet about whether we should update the DDC for BP 2.0. 05:04:53 ...Personal view is that we shouldn't update it. 05:05:30 ...Exception: PNG could be added. 05:06:06 jcantera has joined #bpwg 05:06:10 DKA: I don't think that BP2 is written in the context of the DDC. It is all about knowing device capabilities. 05:06:43 ...Do you have statements in the K BP 1.5 written in support of, say, XHR? 05:07:12 ...Is there something we can pull out of that doc and put into BP2? 05:08:01 ACTION: Jonathan to extract BP statements from K MWBP 1.5 document for consideration in BP 2.0 05:08:01 Created ACTION-695 - Extract BP statements from K MWBP 1.5 document for consideration in BP 2.0 [on Jonathan Jeon - due 2008-03-11]. 05:08:05 q? 05:09:41 Agenda: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w 05:11:10 Helsinki file : http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/pervila/Gradu/index.html 05:11:14 DKA: Anyone want to present University of Helsinki Master's Thesis and Frost Ajax library? 05:11:48 Francois: Will summarize. 05:12:10 ...Would be interesting in having the guy who wrote it summarize it to the group. 05:12:12 http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/pervila/Gradu/index.html 05:12:34 ACTION: Daoust to summarise the U Helsinki masters thesis on Mobile Ajax performance with a view to including some aspects into BP 2 05:12:34 Created ACTION-696 - Summarise the U Helsinki masters thesis on Mobile Ajax performance with a view to including some aspects into BP 2 [on François Daoust - due 2008-03-11]. 05:12:42 http://www.pavingways.com/frost-ajax-library 05:13:53 DKA: Frost Ajax library is for constrained browsers. Javascript and server side component that sends appropriate JS based on the type of the device. 05:14:16 ...Would be interesting in seeing if we could promote that idea. 05:15:18 ...Developer has been active creating comments although not a group member. 05:15:30 Bryan: Is there a summary report on this activity? 05:15:58 DKA: Someone needs to summarize what can be pulled from this library for use by BP2? 05:17:07 q+ 05:17:14 DKA: This pattern of using server side device detection combined with a modular JS library...need to determine if this could be a useful technique in BP2. 05:17:52 Summarize article: http://ajaxian.com/archives/measuring-the-state-of-mobile-ajax-performance 05:18:02 q? 05:18:05 ack mar 05:18:08 Bryan: They have some detailed information that has been put into WURFL and they use that to select JS? 05:18:17 Martin: 05:18:36 Martin: We use a similar technique to determine which JS to send to the device. 05:19:00 Bryan: Does this use a test to find out the JS capabilities? 05:19:16 DKA: No, just uses the type of the device. 05:19:40 Jo: Runs an automated test on the browser. 05:20:00 ...It's run once; don't need to do it every time. 05:20:32 DKA: Sounds even more relevant--we could document what those tests are. We could say use this script to find the characteristics. 05:21:04 Chaals: This is a very simple test. It does 3 tests. Not sure how much time it is worth looking at this. 05:21:38 [whee! Opera Mini passes all its tests :) ] 05:21:53 Jo: Agree with Chaals. We should have something about level of support and simple tests. Need to capture that it is a best practice to do this. 05:22:21 Bryan: We already have a placeholder for this. Have a section on JS reflection. 05:22:57 Jo: The second point is to customize the download of the JS based on the device. 05:23:21 DKA: I think there is still an action here. 05:23:46 ACTION: Dan to summarize the points he can glean from examination of the frost library 05:23:46 Created ACTION-697 - Summarize the points he can glean from examination of the frost library [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-03-11]. 05:26:39 Agenda updated: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_89f6vrqk9w&hl=en 05:27:19 zakim, ping me in 15 minutes 05:27:19 ok, DKA 05:38:08 oo has joined #bpwg 05:42:20 DKA, you asked to be pinged at this time 05:50:12 Scribe: francois 05:50:17 ScribeNick: francois 05:51:24 Jo: agenda is to talk about mobileOK, but before that, I'd like to come back to Jonathan's input on ADC 05:52:01 ... The thing is we need to update DDC for BP2 05:52:11 ... for instance, support for PNG may be assumed 05:52:38 ... The suggestion is BP2 contains a revised version of DDC and reviewed BPs of BP1 05:53:12 Bryan: The presence of DDC without saying that it does not limit the best practices of BP2 might lead to confusion 05:53:37 Jo: Yes, we need to be clear that it's the minimal delivery context, not the target but the baseline 05:54:05 ... If you know nothing about the target, then assume (revised) DDC 05:54:26 ... Other than PNG, I don't really think DDC needs changing 05:54:36 ... I'll raise an issue on that 05:54:43 ACTION: JR to raise issue of revising DDC and to raise discussion of the revised definition being retroactive to BP1 05:54:44 Created ACTION-698 - Raise issue of revising DDC and to raise discussion of the revised definition being retroactive to BP1 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11]. 05:56:02 Jo: In the light of discussion, it occurred to me that there is a set of properties that you need to rely on when reading the BP2 doc 05:56:40 ... I think it's useful to list these DDR properties 05:57:28 s/reading/reading and writing/ 05:57:50 ACTION: Bryan to insert an Appendix listing the Device properties that BP2 is dependent upon 05:57:50 Created ACTION-699 - Insert an Appendix listing the Device properties that BP2 is dependent upon [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-03-11]. 05:58:52 Jo: Also, I think it's clear we don't need an ADC, but what would be great is to have a list of tiers/classes 05:59:10 ... so that when you develop an application, you may target these different classes 05:59:41 ... It seems that this is established practice. I've heard people saying "I have 4-5 classes" 05:59:56 DKA: yes, I'm interested to see where that goes 06:00:48 Jo: I'm hoping that having a best practice around specification in that way addresses concern from persons such as Jonathan 06:01:40 Bryan: to summarize, you would recommend to have a BP to recommend classification, but not list the definition of the classes, right? 06:01:43 Jo: yes 06:02:25 ACTION: Bryan to introduce a BP on classification of devices into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an extended non-normative example, pethaps 06:02:25 Created ACTION-700 - Introduce a BP on classification of devices into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an extended non-normative example, pethaps [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-03-11]. 06:02:53 i/Jo: agenda is/Topic: Back to ADC/ 06:03:33 Topic: couple questions about BP2 06:03:43 Bryan: I don't have yet any inputs on: 06:03:54 1. toolkit developers may use 06:04:08 ... we'll have to address the impact of toolkits 06:04:54 2. how are we going to address the techniques and practices for non-browser applications 06:05:15 Jo: I don't think we need to talk about the execution environment 06:05:27 ... the environment is not especially relevant to mention 06:05:46 Topic: mobileOK scheme 06:06:08 Jo: who knows what it is? 06:06:22 Audience: [smiles] 06:07:00 Bryan: There will be a public value to know that a site is mobileOK, and so we should find a way to mark pages as presumably mobileOK 06:07:40 Dan: mobileOK Scheme is the name we gave to a set of documents, and encompasses mobileOK, tests, the checker 06:08:00 Jo: plus it's a set of usage rules 06:08:14 ... we have failed, as a group, to make a start on the doc 06:08:46 ... We really have to do something for this in my view. 06:08:59 ... What does the teams think? 06:09:58 ... Do we need a mobileOK scheme document? 06:10:22 ... Do we need another doc that says how to use mobileOK, which icon to use, when to use it, ...? 06:10:49 Dan: Yes, we need it, otherwise mobileOK won't be used in public 06:11:02 chaals: Does it need to be a TR doc though? 06:11:12 Dan: no, it doesn't. 06:12:13 Seungyun: from a Korean's perspective, we really need that scheme. 06:12:39 ... We hope W3C will address that doc 06:12:59 Jo: the basic problem is we don't have an editor for the doc. 06:13:10 ... and so without editor, no doc. 06:13:31 ... resolution to find an editor for the doc! 06:13:43 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Chaals to edit mobileOK scheme document 06:13:48 +1 06:13:52 +1 06:13:52 +1 06:13:53 +1 06:14:00 +1 06:14:02 RESOLUTION: Chaals to edit mobileOK scheme document 06:15:01 Jo: I think we should cover a basic content list here and let you work on this. 06:15:19 chaals: I believe there is a working draft 06:15:23 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobileOK-20060712/ source for inspiration 06:15:48 Jo: If I remember correctly, this is the pre-split version 06:16:11 ... what can we extract from this? 06:16:22 chaals: what is mobileOK 06:16:53 ... how does mobileOK relate to best practices? 06:17:01 Jo: where do I find license info 06:17:14 ... it also needs to discuss the checker 06:17:31 ... there needs to be some fairly tight wording in here 06:17:53 ... it needs to discuss that the checker is non normative although it is a ref implementation 06:18:12 ... it should answer the trustmark question 06:18:26 ... dom has an on-going action to check with legal team 06:18:49 Dan: I think there should be a kind of usage scenario for content providers for instance 06:19:03 chaals: yes. How does mobileOK relate to me? 06:19:20 Jo: right. What are the benefits. 06:19:56 ACTION: Dan to write a usage scenario for mobileOK scheme 06:19:57 Created ACTION-701 - Write a usage scenario for mobileOK scheme [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-03-11]. 06:20:12 Jo: when do you think you can have a first editor's draft? 06:20:31 chaals: [thinking hard]. Not tonight. Not tomorrow. 06:20:43 Jo: by next Thursday? 06:20:46 chaals: OK 06:21:00 ACTION: chaals to produce first editors draft of mobileOK scheme in 1 week 06:21:00 Created ACTION-702 - Produce first editors draft of mobileOK scheme in 1 week [on Charles McCathieNevile - due 2008-03-11]. 06:21:56 Dan: is there another issue that we should take on upon which is about mobileOK Pro and mobileOK Basic 06:22:11 ... whether or not mobileOK is synonym to mobileOK Basic 06:22:25 chaals: I would say over my dead body 06:22:32 ... I think it would be a shame 06:23:12 ... I'm not sure it's worth discussing. It will be associated with whatever people use most. 06:23:41 s/body/body. But that is too easy to arrange/ 06:24:45 Jo: Are mobileOK usage rules packed with scheme? 06:25:04 chaals: the scheme should document them, but I don't think it's up to me to write them 06:27:32 Jo: what I think is worth discussing: we have a fundamental decision to make as to whether it's going to be meaningful as a trustmark or just a wishful label 06:28:09 chaals: the HTML label is slightly more reliable than the WCAG label, which is just a joke in the sense that there is no way to check conformance automatically 06:28:45 ... in the last century, W3C had a system where you could report abuse of trustmarks 06:29:39 ... It stops to be a trustmark, and starts to be a badge that you may wear anywhere 06:30:18 q+ 06:30:34 ... Two possibilities: W3C sets precise rules and tries to enforce the use of the trustmark 06:30:39 ... or not 06:30:49 q+ to ask about usage rules for K-MobileOK. 06:31:00 ... These are considered issues beyond the scope of the working group 06:31:58 ack b 06:32:16 ... We should basically say: this is what we're thinking, these are some ways to ensure the trustmark is used correctly, and have copyright rules to ensure that it has to be removed when rules are not followed 06:33:21 Bryan: Trust is something that is based somehow on intent, and there needs to be some recognition of the good will. 06:33:35 ... It's never going to be 100% followed 06:33:42 ... we need to be more flexible 06:34:01 ack d 06:34:01 DKA, you wanted to ask about usage rules for K-MobileOK. 06:34:27 Dan: I would like to ask Jonathan or Seungyun what usage rules were developed with K-MobileOK 06:34:44 ... do you have a set of rules as to when people can claim they are mobileOK? 06:35:06 Seungyun: so far, we don't have specific rules for mobileOK 06:35:14 s/mobileOK/K-mobileOK/ 06:35:26 ... because we're waiting for W3C! 06:36:01 q+ 06:36:13 ack d 06:36:17 ... We need some explicit rules from W3C in order to deploy that in Korea. We only have some requirements for the moment. 06:36:50 Dan: It sounds to me that there is an aspiration for a mobileOK button. 06:37:34 Jo: I really like this idea. We might even resolve on that. 06:38:55 ... One of the things that I think is important: mobileOK means "you want to be mobile friendly" as Bryan crystalized correctly before 06:39:30 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There will be an aspirational levle of mobileOK called "mobileOK Checked" that links to validator/mobile with default URI of referringpage 06:40:20 s/level/levle represented by a badge/ 06:40:34 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There will be an aspirational badge for mobileOK called "mobileOK Checked" that links to validator/mobile with default URI of referring page 06:40:47 +1 06:40:48 s/levle represented by a badge/level/ 06:40:59 s/levle/level represented by a badge/ 06:42:04 +1 06:42:06 RESOLUTION: There will be an aspirational badge for mobileOK called "mobileOK Checked" that links to validator/mobile with default URI of referring page 06:42:57 this is a mobileok test page in Korea : http://test.mobileok.or.kr/ 06:43:07 Jo: next point is the distinction between the claim of the trustmark and the use of the visual representation 06:43:36 ... previous discussion said that the label was the claim 06:43:53 ... and the visual representation is just informal 06:44:19 ... from a technical point of vue, it's important. From the appelquistian simple point of view, it's too complex 06:44:38 s/vue/view/ 06:44:48 chaals: we should accept the fact that putting the badge is actually claiming that you are mobileOK. 06:45:43 ... I would suggest that we can do is that when you have a badge, then you have to link it to a POWDER claim. 06:46:15 ... so if I get to the badge and cannot find the POWDER claim, then you're breaking the rules. 06:46:46 Jo: Again, back to the point about the fact that the visual representation may appear on content that is not mobileOK because of thematic consistency 06:47:22 q? 06:48:03 francois: too complex? 06:48:34 chaals: if you want to claim something is mobileOK, then you need to have a POWDER claim 06:49:06 ... if you put a badge in your page, you need to link it to the POWDER claim 06:50:15 ... should the badge link directly to the POWDER doc? Quite possibly not, because that's not really useful from a browser's point of view. 06:50:38 ... so maybe it's linking to a page that contains a link to the POWDER statement. 06:53:15 ... If you serve 400000 pages adapted to delivery contexts that are not DDC and not mobileOK but deliver mobileOK pages to DDC, there's no reason why you can't add the mobileOK badge to all of your pages. 07:14:52 Scribe: Jo 07:14:56 ScribeNick: Jo 07:15:19 MartinJ has joined #bpwg 07:15:39 Topic: ISSUEs and ACTIONs 07:16:13 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open 07:16:40 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/pendingreview 07:17:08 Topic: ACTION-529 07:17:33 jo: Ed said leave pending 07:17:53 Topic: ACTION-541 MobileOK Scheme 07:18:04 jo: suggest reassign to chaals 07:18:31 [reassigned to chaals] 07:18:42 Topic: ACTION-606 07:19:07 close ACTION-606 07:19:07 ACTION-606 Detail reload re: section 2.1.5 original representation availability closed 07:19:20 Topic: ACTION-607 07:19:28 close ACTION-607 07:19:28 ACTION-607 Detail what he means by "reload" request on mailing list closed 07:19:50 Topic: ACTION-614 07:20:10 jo: on me, leave pending 07:20:20 Topic: ACTION-621 07:20:26 ACTION-621? 07:20:26 ACTION-621 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to check if W3C has a liaison with OpenAjax -- due 2008-01-24 -- OPEN 07:20:26 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/621 07:20:45 Topic: ACTION-631 07:20:59 ACTION-631? 07:21:00 ACTION-631 -- François Daoust to check with Dom about test cases for ISSUE-234 -- due 2008-01-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:21:00 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/631 07:22:55 close ACTION-631 07:22:55 ACTION-631 Check with Dom about test cases for ISSUE-234 closed 07:23:10 Topic: ACTION-638 07:23:17 ACTION-638? 07:23:17 ACTION-638 -- Kai Scheppe to raise an issue on ISSUE: Does the TF need to create device which emulates the DDC for testing? -- due 2008-02-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW 07:23:17 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/638 07:23:50 Topic: Open Actions 07:24:44 Topic: ACTION-[leave pen] 07:25:03 s/[leave pen]/530 07:25:11 [leave open] 07:25:24 TOPIC: ACTION-589 07:25:35 ACTION-589? 07:25:35 ACTION-589 -- Daniel Appelquist to look for one or more likely candidates to adopt techniques and make arrangements ref copyright and attribution -- due 2007-11-12 -- OPEN 07:25:35 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/589 07:26:05 jo: have mailed offering dotMobi to take this over as part of dev.mobi, no response from Dom as yet 07:26:56 close ACTION-589 07:26:56 ACTION-589 Look for one or more likely candidates to adopt techniques and make arrangements ref copyright and attribution closed 07:28:40 [DKA opens ISSUE-239] 07:28:43 Topic: ACTION-594 07:28:54 ACTION-594? 07:28:54 ACTION-594 -- Daniel Appelquist to coordinate mobileOK Basic advancement, probably starting with a teleconf -- due 2007-12-21 -- OPEN 07:28:54 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/594 07:29:17 close ACTION-594 07:29:17 ACTION-594 Coordinate mobileOK Basic advancement, probably starting with a teleconf closed 07:29:28 Topic: ACTION-603 07:29:39 ACTION-603? 07:29:39 ACTION-603 -- François Daoust to find out how to liaise with HTTP NG work -- due 2008-01-29 -- OPEN 07:29:39 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/603 07:30:16 chaals has joined #bpwg 07:30:37 fd: if we really need to add something to HTTP we will try to do that but that's not the way they want to go, their scope is rewriting not creating new stuff 07:30:50 fd: if anything, we need new stuff 07:30:58 Close ACTION-603 07:30:58 ACTION-603 Find out how to liaise with HTTP NG work closed 07:31:08 Topic: ACTION-605 07:31:18 ACTION-605? 07:31:18 ACTION-605 -- Magnus Lönnroth to suggest some text for 2.1.2 -- due 2007-12-11 -- OPEN 07:31:18 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/605 07:32:01 ACTION-605? 07:32:01 ACTION-605 -- Magnus Lönnroth to suggest some text for 2.1.2 -- due 2007-12-11 -- OPEN 07:32:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/605 07:32:15 close ACTION-605 07:32:15 ACTION-605 Suggest some text for 2.1.2 closed 07:32:38 Topic: ACTION-613 07:32:46 ACTION-613? 07:32:46 ACTION-613 -- Jo Rabin to start collecting mobileOK web pages for mobileOK CR -- due 2008-01-10 -- OPEN 07:32:46 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/613 07:32:53 jo: ongoing 07:33:11 Topic: ACTION-618 07:33:26 ACTION-618? 07:33:26 ACTION-618 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 -- due 2008-01-17 -- OPEN 07:33:26 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/618 07:33:37 [leave open] 07:33:49 Topic: ACTION-619 07:33:59 ACTION-619? 07:33:59 ACTION-619 -- Alan Chuter to update the comments list to public-bpwg-comments -- due 2008-01-24 -- OPEN 07:33:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/619 07:34:13 dka: did this happen? 07:34:20 fd: yes 07:34:26 close ACTION-619 07:34:26 ACTION-619 Update the comments list to public-bpwg-comments closed 07:34:40 Topic: ACTION-621 07:34:48 ACTION-621? 07:34:48 ACTION-621 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to check if W3C has a liaison with OpenAjax -- due 2008-01-24 -- OPEN 07:34:48 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/621 07:35:03 Dka: ? 07:35:07 fd: ? 07:35:13 [leave open] 07:35:21 Topic: ACTION-625 07:35:29 ACTION-625? 07:35:29 ACTION-625 -- François Daoust to initiate discuss on the exception wording ref dangerous content -- due 2008-01-29 -- OPEN 07:35:29 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/625 07:36:07 [still open] 07:36:16 Topic: ACTION-629 07:36:22 ACTION-629? 07:36:22 ACTION-629 -- Ignacio Marin to will ask group about having it the week before the Expo starts -- due 2008-01-31 -- OPEN 07:36:22 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/629 07:36:31 close ACTION-629 07:36:32 ACTION-629 Will ask group about having it the week before the Expo starts closed 07:36:41 Topic: ACTION-632 07:36:46 ACTION-632? 07:36:46 ACTION-632 -- Bryan Sullivan to propose some recommendation on user-agent detection from a proxy and browser's (format) point of view -- due 2008-02-05 -- OPEN 07:36:46 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/632 07:37:13 BS: still open 07:37:30 Topic: ACTION-633 07:37:35 ACTION-633? 07:37:35 ACTION-633 -- Andrew Swainston to write a clear draft on @@allow-https-rewrite and the need for the end-user to be aware of the situation -- due 2008-02-05 -- OPEN 07:37:35 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/633 07:38:12 [change to pending review] 07:38:28 Kangchan has joined #bpwg 07:38:57 Topic: ACTION-634 07:39:02 ACTION-634? 07:39:02 ACTION-634 -- François Daoust to write a note to say something about Cache-Control: no-transform and WAP gateways -- due 2008-02-05 -- OPEN 07:39:02 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/634 07:41:43 [change to pending review] 07:41:52 Topic: ACTION-637 07:41:58 ACTION-637? 07:41:58 ACTION-637 -- Alan Chuter to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. -- due 2008-02-12 -- OPEN 07:41:58 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/637 07:42:16 [no response from Alan] 07:42:28 Topic: ACTION-640 07:42:37 ACTION-640? 07:42:37 ACTION-640 -- Phil Archer to draft test suite document to complement Test Document - such a draft may or may not be completed depending on its usefulness in the Test Document creation process -- due 2008-02-12 -- OPEN 07:42:37 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/640 07:43:12 [skipping Pro Test docs as we don'tknow] 07:43:29 s/don'tknow]/don't know/ 07:43:47 Topic: ACTION-657 07:43:55 close ACTION-657 07:43:55 ACTION-657 Post a questionnaire re June f2f by Feb.21 closed 07:44:04 Topic: ACTION-660 07:44:10 ACTION-660? 07:44:10 ACTION-660 -- Bryan Sullivan to raise specific points of discussion on Public List -- due 2008-02-21 -- OPEN 07:44:10 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/660 07:44:26 close ACTION-660 07:44:26 ACTION-660 Raise specific points of discussion on Public List closed 07:44:36 Topic: ACTION-663 07:44:41 ACTION-663? 07:44:41 ACTION-663 -- François Daoust to set up a poll for BPWG due in one hour -- due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN 07:44:41 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/663 07:44:50 close ACTION-663 07:44:50 ACTION-663 Set up a poll for BPWG due in one hour closed 07:45:00 Topic: ACTION-664 07:45:11 ACTION-664? 07:45:11 ACTION-664 -- Yeliz Yesilada to provide some examples to put into the document - specifically on STYLE_SHEET_SUPPORT -- due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN 07:45:11 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/664 07:45:19 [pending review] 07:45:56 Topic: ACTION-665 07:46:01 ACTION-665? 07:46:01 ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN 07:46:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665 07:46:07 [leave open] 07:46:16 Topic: ACTION-666 07:46:31 ACTION-666? 07:46:31 ACTION-666 -- Aaron Kemp to draft section 2.6 listing user control options that SHOULD be supported -- due 2008-03-04 -- OPEN 07:46:31 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/666 07:46:43 [change to pending review] 07:47:09 Topic: ACTION-667 07:47:18 close ACTION-667 07:47:18 ACTION-667 Make 2.7 and 2.8 sub sections of 2.6 closed 07:47:29 Topic: ACTION-668 07:47:53 close ACTION-668 07:47:53 ACTION-668 Raise an ISSUE on labelling using POWDER describing transformation options on sites closed 07:48:03 Topic: ACTION-670 07:48:09 close ACTION-670 07:48:09 ACTION-670 Remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.2 closed 07:48:27 Topic: ACTION-671 07:49:06 close ACTION-671 07:49:06 ACTION-671 Update wording of sect 3.2 p 2 to clarify that the intent is not to respond with a transformed copy closed 07:49:27 Topic: ACTION-672 07:49:34 close ACTION-672 07:49:34 ACTION-672 Adjust text in 3,2 per the previous note in the minutes closed 07:49:49 Topic: ACTION-673 07:49:56 ACTION-673? 07:49:56 ACTION-673 -- Aaron Kemp to see if he can get some figures that scope the problem of bogus 200 responses -- due 2008-03-04 -- OPEN 07:49:56 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/673 07:50:02 [leave open] 07:50:10 Topic: ACTION-674 07:50:20 close ACTION-674 07:50:20 ACTION-674 Produce new draft based on the many actions he has taken during this call :-) before BP meeting on THursday closed 07:51:14 Topic: ACTION-677 07:52:02 ACTION-677 07:52:09 ACTION-677? 07:52:09 ACTION-677 -- Daniel Appelquist to create an issue to start bringing together potential test cases. -- due 2008-03-06 -- OPEN 07:52:09 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/677 07:52:19 [leave open] 07:52:24 Topic: Issues 07:54:08 Scribe: Bryan 07:54:16 Scribenick: Bryan 07:55:53 Topic: Issue-222? 07:56:05 Topic: Issue-222 07:56:08 Issue-222? 07:56:08 ISSUE-222 -- TAG Finding on Alternative Representations -- OPEN 07:56:08 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/222 07:58:17 Jo: this is talking about alternative representations; there is a can of worms to be opened here. The suggestions shown are interesting and we can adopt them as BPs, but 08:00:08 Jo: the problem is that no one does this, except for some specific examples. 08:01:18 Jo: as an initial step we can make recommendations, e.g. based upon proposed texton the list from last year. 08:01:26 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/open 08:02:36 Jo: i.e. since there are so many optional representations, using distinct URI schemes seems impractical. 08:03:46 abel has joined #bpwg 08:04:53 Jo: other points were made in the email, e.g. re 2.1.1 point 5 in the TAG finding, the reason it is problematic is while it talks about HTML, we are interested in more than HTML, e.g. 08:05:44 Jo: Images and links for them. 08:06:50 Jo: re redirection, we are averse to redirection but may consider the 300 response as a way to do it, e.g. as discussed in RFC 2295/2296. 08:07:26 Jo: redirection is generally to be avoided since mobile sites don't have static versions of their resources. 08:09:06 Jo: re point E, its hard to know whether a URI points to a specific representation or a resource with multiple representations. The linkages that are suggested require that there be a way to distinguish this. 08:09:57 Jo: CT TF needs to consider resources linked as described here. Google has mentioned this as a recommended practice. 08:10:17 Jo: The question is what do we expect from TAG in response to our note. 08:10:28 Dan: they could help us solve the problem. 08:10:52 Jo: they may ask us what is our answer instead 08:11:10 Dan: we already have some answers in the CT guidelines doc 08:11:37 Jo: we have enough to do already without invoking a discussion with TAG that might not bear fruit. 08:11:51 Dan: if we issue a document that contradicts we will get comments 08:12:48 Francois: Jo's points are valid, and we should give them to the TAG. 08:14:31 Francois: initial feeling is that we are both wrong, content adaptation in the future will not be solved by HTTP links for alternate representations 08:15:20 Francois: the negotiation will be more complex than supported by the link approach 08:16:20 Jo: from our likely recommendation that POWDER be used to describe resources, we need a link header for that purpose, and the meta information there would be helpful for CT 08:16:52 wonsuk has left #BPWG 08:17:45 Francois: they could say that the web page returned (the ML) will address the appropriate links to available representations 08:18:35 Jo: will draft a note around these 5 points for review and to initiate a dialog with TAG 08:19:06 Jo: will do this in the next couple of weeks 08:19:42 ACTION: Jo to draft a communication with the TAG based on ISSUE-222 08:19:42 Created ACTION-703 - Draft a communication with the TAG based on ISSUE-222 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11]. 08:26:39 Topic: Issue-223 08:26:43 Issue-223? 08:26:43 ISSUE-223 -- Various Items to Consider for the CT Guidelines -- OPEN 08:26:43 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/223 08:28:00 Jo: for the shopping list, we may be able to avoid the issue through the indirect intentions being expressed through T&C's, that the CP's intent should be respected, but 08:29:38 Jo: since our job is to promote mobile web awareness, we should assume that CP's intend to provide the mobile representation. But the user may express a preference for the desktop 08:30:03 Jo: version by using a user-agent switcher or via other means. 08:30:34 Dan: since you can't do all desktop things on the mobile site, a user may want to use the deskop for those missing things 08:31:27 Jo: although we never said it, we implied that its a good idea to match the user's context but they should allow a return to desktop view since they may have misunderstood the context. 08:31:59 Jo: So we should say that CP's should provide a desktop view, and give the choice to the user. 08:33:10 Jo: user's preferences may normally be overridden because the CP knows better, but the user can effect an higher priority override when desired 08:34:07 q+ 08:34:15 q? 08:34:20 Jo: we need also to put a placeholder in BP2 that CP's should make assumptions but should allow users to override the assumptions 08:34:50 Francois: Aaron's contribution goes in that direction, e.g. user priority should be given 08:35:06 ack SeanP 08:35:41 Sean: in other areas there are some precedents, e.g. CSS, where the CP stylesheet normally overrides the user, but the user can ultimately overrride the CP 08:35:46 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In matters of presentation, Content Providers' preference should take preference over user's preference, but user should be able to exert a high-priority override over the content provider's prefernece if desired. 08:36:06 Jo: that is a good example, and we could reference it 08:36:11 +1 08:36:19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in matters of presentation, Content Providers' preference should take preference over user's preference, but user should be able to exert a high-priority override over the content provider's prefernece if desired. 08:36:25 +1 08:36:45 +1 08:36:56 +1 08:37:00 +1 08:37:44 RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in matters of presentation, the Content Provider's preference should take preference over user's preference, but user should be able to exert a high-priority override over the content provider's prefernece if desired. 08:38:41 Jo: on point 2, how should the user signal their choices, they can't. A new HTTP header is required, or an application artifact needs to be created. 08:39:08 Jo: the question is thus out of scope since it's new technology 08:40:02 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: the question of how the user signals their choice is out of scope. 08:40:34 Bryan: so we can also add a statement that the user should be given an option at the application layer, a link to switch modes 08:41:29 RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: the question of how the user signals their choice is out of scope as a signaling question, but in scope as an application or user interaction question and we recommend that both CT Proxies and origin servers provide user interactions to effect this. 08:41:57 q? 08:42:44 Jo: re issue 3, this is done, we have resolved that they should present original headers 08:44:03 Jo: on point 4, this is all out of scope, as an area for product differentiation 08:45:24 Jo: on point 5, we have a workable compromise but need to express it clearly 08:45:48 Francois: this links back to the "dangerous" question 08:46:44 Jo: the answer is multipart; first, user choice if only thru T&C's; there may also be apparently malformed content that is required, e.g. for non-browsers. 08:47:29 Dan: is the question here that we need two shades of transform control 08:48:00 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: lksakllkasd 08:48:02 Jo: that is addressed through the inclusion of a POWDER declaration identifying the intent 08:49:39 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in the matter of overriding no-transform... a. it's a user choice (which may be delegated to a service provider) b. with appropriate CT detection of non-browsers apparantly malformed content will be left alone. 08:49:57 +1 08:49:59 +1 08:50:04 +1 08:50:04 +1 08:50:05 +1 08:50:10 +1 08:50:10 RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in the matter of overriding no-transform... a. it's a user choice (which may be delegated to a service provider) b. with appropriate CT detection of non-browsers apparantly malformed content will be left alone. 08:50:49 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in the matter of overriding "no-transform but tidy allowed"... we're waiting for POWDER. 08:51:19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in the matter of overriding "no-transform but tidy allowed"... the content provider preferences will be expressed via POWDER. 08:51:33 +1 08:51:44 RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: in the matter of overriding "no-transform but tidy allowed"... the content provider preferences will be expressed via POWDER. 08:53:28 Jo: re point 6, BPWG says content should be tested, but this can't be claimed without testing via CT proxies. Even with test houses, it would be helpful to provide a more realizable means for CP's to comply. 08:53:43 Jo: the facilities should be provided by proxy operators. 08:54:41 Chaals: Opera Mini provides an onine tool to verify how something will work thru Opera Mini. 08:55:29 Jo: suggests Operators of CT proxies should provide test facilities. 08:55:39 Bryan: and not CT product providers? 08:55:54 q+ 08:56:01 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Operators of content transforming proxies should provide test facilities for the benefit of content providers. 08:56:02 Dan: the proxies are setup per the business rules of the CT proxy operator. 08:56:08 ack seanp 08:56:32 ack SeanP 08:56:39 q+ 08:57:07 ack MartinJ 08:57:15 q? 08:57:57 Martin: believes this makes sense in some cases, for customized products it may not be practical for CP's to test thru all CT proxy operators. 08:58:54 Chaals: unconvinced that this has a place in the CT spec 08:59:08 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: Operators of content transforming proxies should provide test facilities for the benefit of content providers. 08:59:15 Jo: we can't say that you must test without giving a means or directions how to do it 08:59:21 +1 08:59:32 +1 08:59:33 RESOLUTION: Regarding the CT Guidelines document: Operators of content transforming proxies should provide test facilities for the benefit of content providers. 09:00:56 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the group expresses its thanks to the hosts of this f2f, ETRI and the Mobile Web 2.0 Forum 09:00:58 +1 09:00:59 +1 09:01:01 +1 09:01:03 +1 09:01:06 RESOLUTION: the group expresses its thanks to the hosts of this f2f, ETRI and the Mobile Web 2.0 Forum 09:01:18 suggestion : let's take a picture together !! 09:01:49 RRSAgent, make minutes 09:01:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html jo 09:03:29 RRSAgent, make log public 09:03:37 RRSAgent, make minutes 09:03:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html francois 09:13:07 i/Chair: Dan/ScribeNick: chaals 09:13:10 RRSAgent, make minutes 09:13:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html francois 09:14:10 rob has left #bpwg 09:48:27 Sunghan has joined #bpwg 09:48:49 Sunghan has left #bpwg 11:47:54 Zakim has left #bpwg 11:48:23 abel has left #bpwg