14:57:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:57:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-irc
14:57:45 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:57:47 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:57:47 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:48 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:57:49 <trackbot-ng> Date: 25 March 2008
14:58:11 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0029.html
14:58:42 <francois> Regrets: kemp, Magnus, Bryan
14:58:52 <francois> Chair: francois
14:59:00 <francois> zakim, code?
14:59:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), francois
14:59:20 <rob> rob has joined #bpwg
14:59:56 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG(CTTF)11:00AM has now started
15:00:00 <Zakim> + +049238aaaa
15:00:03 <Zakim> + +0208995aabb
15:00:05 <Zakim> - +0208995aabb
15:00:05 <Zakim> + +0208995aabb
15:00:12 <francois> zakim, aaaa is francois
15:00:12 <Zakim> +francois; got it
15:00:14 <jo> zakim, aabb is me
15:00:14 <Zakim> +jo; got it
15:00:16 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
15:00:42 <MartinJ> MartinJ has joined #bpwg
15:00:49 <francois> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:00:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see jo, francois
15:01:02 <jo> regrets+ andrews
15:01:34 <Zakim> + +0207287aacc
15:01:46 <Zakim> + +1.630.414.aadd
15:01:48 <rob> zakim, aacc is me
15:01:48 <Zakim> +rob; got it
15:01:50 <Zakim> + +0777613aaee
15:01:59 <SeanP> Zakim, aadd isme
15:01:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aadd isme', SeanP
15:02:07 <francois> zakim, aadd is SeanP
15:02:07 <Zakim> +SeanP; got it
15:02:08 <MartinJ> zakim, aaee is me
15:02:09 <Zakim> +MartinJ; got it
15:02:09 <SeanP> Zakim aadd is me
15:03:34 <francois> Scribe: SeanP
15:03:37 <francois> ScribeNick: SeanP
15:04:09 <SeanP> Francois: Today we should go through our actions.
15:04:12 <francois> Topic: ACTION-682: Write a proposal on the HEAD request handling (§3.1.2)
15:04:39 <SeanP> Francois: Based on Martin's text
15:04:45 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0009.html Martin's proposal
15:04:55 <matt> Present- Matt
15:05:05 <SeanP> Francois: I simplified one of the sentences.
15:05:20 <francois> "Clients can issue HTTP HEAD requests in order to determine if a 
15:05:20 <francois> resource is of a type and/or size that they are capable of handling. A 
15:05:20 <francois> proxy may convert a HEAD request into a GET request if it requires the 
15:05:20 <francois> response body to determine the characteristics of the transformed 
15:05:20 <francois> response that it would return if the client issues a GET request. Where 
15:05:21 <francois> this occurs, the proxy should (subject to HTTP cache directives) cache 
15:05:23 <francois> the response that it receives so that if the client immediately follows 
15:05:26 <francois> the HEAD request with a GET request for the same URI, the proxy is not 
15:05:26 <SeanP> Francois: Any problems with the proposed text?
15:05:29 <francois> required to send a second GET request to the server."
15:05:43 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: use above text to resolve ACTION-682
15:05:53 <jo> subject to HTTP cache directives => providing in accordance with normal HTTP caching rules
15:06:49 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: leave above text to resolve ACTION-682 in the hands of the editor
15:06:50 <jo> +1
15:06:56 <MartinJ> +1
15:06:58 <rob> +1
15:07:11 <Zakim> -SeanP
15:07:37 <francois> RESOLUTION: leave above text to resolve ACTION-682 in the hands of the editor
15:07:43 <francois> Close ACTION-682
15:07:43 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-682 Write a proposal on the HEAD request handling. closed
15:07:54 <francois> Topic: ACTION-683: Inference on URIs (§3.1.2)
15:08:12 <Zakim> + +1.630.773.aaff
15:08:21 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0019.html rob's contribution
15:08:25 <SeanP> Zakim, aaff is me
15:08:25 <Zakim> +SeanP; got it
15:09:01 <SeanP> Francois: Rob, you suggested we no change anything
15:09:25 <SeanP> Rob: I think the statement that is already there is all we can say.
15:09:31 <SeanP> Zakim, mute me
15:09:31 <Zakim> SeanP should now be muted
15:09:50 <SeanP> Francois: I think that is fine.  We'll leave it up to CT proxy vendors.
15:10:03 <SeanP> ...Jo are you OK with that?
15:10:21 <SeanP> Jo: This is another "remaining silent" thing.
15:10:30 <Zakim> -MartinJ
15:10:35 <SeanP> ...It is worth mentioning that the server could give you some clues.
15:10:55 <SeanP> ...If we are going to go with POWDER we should mention it in this section
15:11:10 <SeanP> Francois:  Unsure about what we should say about POWDER.
15:11:26 <SeanP> Jo: Should say that these resources do this, those do that, etc.
15:11:46 <Zakim> +MartinJ
15:12:40 <SeanP> Jo: I think we have time.  We've have time to find out how we should do the POWDER
15:13:05 <SeanP> Francois: Not sure how to put it in the document given that POWDER does not exist.
15:13:44 <SeanP> Jo: I think we are pretty close to resolving everything we want to put in the document except for the POWDER stuff.
15:14:19 <SeanP> ...I think it is time to go to a FPWD and leave as editorial notes about the richer vocabulary.
15:15:07 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for ACTION-683, no change in bullet 3 of 3.1.2
15:15:18 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for ACTION-683, no change in bullet 3 of 3.1.2 save POWDER editorial's note
15:15:48 <rob> +1
15:15:51 <MartinJ> +1
15:16:04 <jo> +1
15:16:12 <francois> RESOLUTION: for ACTION-683, no change in bullet 3 of 3.1.2 save POWDER editorial's
15:16:19 <francois> Close ACTION-683
15:16:20 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-683 Raise an issue on inferencing from the structure of the URI what assumptions to make about another from the point of view of the CT Proxy closed
15:16:37 <francois> Topic: ACTION-684: Bad practice to strip comments in VIA header (§3.1.4)
15:17:21 <SeanP> Francois: You mentioned in 3.1.4 that this reverses HTTP
15:17:45 <SeanP> ...HTTP says the proxy may strip comments.
15:17:57 <SeanP> s/You/Jo, you/
15:18:17 <SeanP> Jo: It is probably worth finding out why HTTP says this.
15:18:31 <SeanP> ...It seems kind of odd that HTTP says this.
15:18:50 <SeanP> Francois: Good point.  I'll ask an HTTP expert.
15:19:12 <SeanP> Jo: Should say that if you are complying with transformation guidelines, you should not strip the comment.
15:19:24 <francois> ACTION: daoust to check why HTTP RFC states comments MAY be removed from a VIA header.
15:19:24 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-722 - Check why HTTP RFC states comments MAY be removed from a VIA header. [on François Daoust - due 2008-04-01].
15:20:04 <SeanP> Francois: Jo, do you think you will come up with a note.
15:20:30 <SeanP> Jo: The answer about having the editorial note is yes.
15:20:51 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note, pending FD's ACTION-722
15:21:25 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note on it being bad practice to strip comments from Via HEader (ACTION-684), pending FD's ACTION-722
15:21:36 <SeanP> +1
15:21:38 <MartinJ> +1
15:22:13 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note on it being bad practice to strip comments from Via Header (ACTION-684) and that this is not consistent with HTTP, pending FD's ACTION-722
15:22:20 <francois> +1
15:22:31 <jo> RESOLUTION: Yes we should add a note on it being bad practice to strip comments from Via Header (ACTION-684) and that this is not consistent with HTTP, pending FD's ACTION-722
15:22:40 <francois> Topic: ACTION-685: how to embed original headers (§3.1.4)
15:23:04 <SeanP> Francois: I sent an email on Friday about this.
15:23:39 <SeanP> ...Maybe we could address this next week since everyone was on vacation at the end of the week.
15:25:30 <SeanP> Francois: HTTP doesn't say anything about bodies in GET requests.
15:25:35 <SeanP> Jo: I think it does.
15:25:51 <SeanP> Jo: We could do some tests with real web servers.
15:26:48 <SeanP> ...We can test whether if we put an extra thing in a request, existing servers fail.
15:27:20 <SeanP> Francois: We may have to make a test.
15:27:31 <SeanP> Jo: Agreed.
15:27:56 <francois> Topic: ACTION-706: Reword §2.5.1
15:27:57 <SeanP> Jo: We'll need to read your email about this and have a discussion next week.
15:28:43 <SeanP> Francois: We had a discussion about control by the user.
15:29:15 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313#d0e331 2.5.1
15:29:21 <SeanP> ...Jo, you added an editorial note.  Do we need to resolve on this?
15:29:38 <rob> q+
15:30:04 <SeanP> Jo: The text of 2.5.1 as it stands was proposed by Bryan.
15:30:24 <francois> ack rob
15:30:25 <SeanP> ...I'm wonding if what is in 2.5.1 is strong enough.
15:31:18 <SeanP> Rob: My comment is that some of the CT servers are on particular  web sites.  They wouldn't bother to set up a session.
15:31:33 <SeanP> ...It is probably best to leave it is "MAY".
15:31:56 <SeanP> Francois: I may agree.
15:32:28 <SeanP> Francois: We agree that static settings are out of scope.
15:32:40 <SeanP> ...What we are really talking about is session settings.
15:33:07 <SeanP> Francois:  We'll leave it as a MAY?
15:33:27 <SeanP> Zakim, unmute me
15:33:27 <Zakim> SeanP should no longer be muted
15:33:58 <SeanP> Zakim, mute me
15:33:58 <Zakim> SeanP should now be muted
15:34:10 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: stick to "may" in 2.5.1, and change "persistent" to something less strong
15:35:24 <SeanP> Jo: I think we need to think about what a "session" is.
15:35:39 <SeanP> ...not sure what we mean by session right now.
15:36:28 <SeanP> ...I think 2.5.1 needs to be taken on the list.
15:37:50 <francois> ACTION: daoust to raise discussion on session settings vs persistent settings for 2.5.1 and 2.5.3
15:37:50 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-723 - Raise discussion on session settings vs persistent settings for 2.5.1 and 2.5.3 [on François Daoust - due 2008-04-01].
15:38:21 <francois> Topic: ACTION-707: Include examples in §2.5.1 bullet 3
15:38:50 <SeanP> Francois: Examples look fine to me.
15:39:07 <francois> Close ACTION-707
15:39:07 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-707 Include examples in 2.5.1 bullet 3 per the dicussion above closed
15:39:21 <francois> Topic: ACTION-708: Update 2.5.2
15:39:49 <jo> ACTION-708?
15:39:49 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-708 -- Jo Rabin to update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion and Seoul resolution on preferences -- due 2008-03-18 -- OPEN
15:39:49 <trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/708
15:39:54 <SeanP> Francois: Not sure I remember what this action was about.
15:40:22 <SeanP> ...Was to rewrite section 2.5.2 given what happened a the Seoul F2F
15:41:04 <SeanP> Francois: It was about if the user preferences contradict the server preferences.
15:41:20 <SeanP> ...We do have a resolution on this.
15:42:03 <SeanP> ...Discussed this in the context of that this is the way CSS works.
15:42:34 <SeanP> Jo: we need a better way to say this.
15:43:33 <SeanP> s/...Discussed/Jo: Discussed/
15:43:36 <jo> ACTION: Jo to raise discussion on list as to clarification of 2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict server preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the server." 
15:43:36 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-724 - Raise discussion on list as to clarification of 2.5.2 \"In cases where user preferences contradict server preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the server.\"  [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-01].
15:44:09 <francois> Close ACTION-708
15:44:09 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-708 Update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion and Seoul resolution on preferences closed
15:44:16 <francois> Topic: ACTION-709: Write some examples for 2.5.3
15:44:32 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0018.html fd's proposal
15:44:39 <francois> "The preferences of users and of servers MAY be ascertained by means 
15:44:39 <francois> outside the scope of this document. These means include but are not 
15:44:39 <francois> limited to:
15:44:39 <francois> - the use by transforming proxies of a disallow-list of Web sites for 
15:44:39 <francois> which content transformation is known to be useless and/or to break 
15:44:40 <francois> delivered content.
15:44:42 <francois> - the use by the transforming proxies of an allow-list of Web sites for 
15:44:44 <francois> which content transformation is known to be necessary.
15:44:46 <francois> - user static preferences, e.g. provisioned by their CT service provider 
15:44:48 <francois> or directly by the user through self-care web sites.
15:44:50 <francois> - terms and conditions of service, as agreed upon between the user and 
15:44:52 <francois> the CT service provider."
15:44:54 <SeanP> Francois: This is where I had a chat with Bryan about static and persistent settings as opposed to session settings.
15:45:46 <SeanP> ...The third point needs to be re-examined in light of the earlier discussion on this call.
15:45:55 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove user static preferences in above text for the time being, and use the resulting text for 2.5.3 under ACTION-709
15:45:55 <SeanP> Jo: These look pretty complete.
15:46:11 <jo> +1
15:46:21 <francois> RESOLUTION: remove user static preferences in above text for the time being, and use the resulting text for 2.5.3 under ACTION-709
15:46:31 <francois> Topic: ACTION-718: re Ajax/XHR requests and CT
15:46:55 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0028.html fd's thoughts on this
15:46:57 <SeanP> Francois: I raised this problem.
15:47:23 <SeanP> ...I tried to rephrase the discussion about this problem.
15:48:15 <SeanP> ...the XHR request will use the same headers as a normal request, so there is no way to tell if it is XHR request.
15:48:58 <SeanP> ...for simple calls in a web page; it it transformed the page, the CT proxy should know how to handle the request.
15:49:30 <SeanP> ...the problem is for untransformed pages, it doesn't know that an XHR request should not be transformed as well.
15:50:09 <SeanP> ....Martin said that requests and responses should only be transformed when the CT proxy knows that they originated from a transformed request.
15:50:36 <SeanP> ...Bryan said that as a best practice, XHR request should change the UA.
15:50:56 <SeanP> ...Good idea, will be hard to ask all developers to do this.
15:51:24 <SeanP> ...Could recommend that developers add no-transform to XHR request.
15:51:50 <SeanP> Jo: no-transform is consistent with other things we have said in the document.
15:52:09 <SeanP> Francois: We've already said that elsewhere in the document.
15:52:42 <SeanP> Jo: We said we weren't going to discuss clients and users and we are drifting back to that.
15:52:55 <SeanP> ...In this case it may we worth saying something.
15:53:06 <SeanP> Francois:  I don't see how we can make it work.
15:53:39 <SeanP> ...How can the proxy determine that calls originate from a page if it did not transform the page.
15:54:55 <SeanP> Francois: Suppose you have a web page that contains too much JavaScript to transform.  In the page there are some XHR calls.
15:55:47 <SeanP> ...The CT proxy must be consistent..  It must not transform these XHR calls.  There is no real way to detect that it is an XHR call.
15:55:50 <SeanP> q+
15:55:58 <francois> ack SeanP
15:59:13 <SeanP> Francois: It will work in the future.  We need to worry about legacy stuff.
15:59:46 <SeanP> Jo: Is this much of an issue.  What are the chances that what comes back is in the form that needs to be transformed?
16:00:07 <SeanP> Francois: We may be creating an issue out of nothing.
16:00:20 <SeanP> ...Let me come up with some smarter text on that.
16:00:51 <SeanP> ...I'll come up with something along the lines of a warning about XHR.
16:01:18 <SeanP> Jo: I don't see anywhere in this document about what content types the CT proxy will intervene in.
16:01:31 <SeanP> ...We should put something in about that.
16:02:38 <SeanP> Francois: We mention CT in the list of heuristics for determining whether a page is mobile.
16:03:38 <Zakim> -rob
16:04:03 <SeanP> Jo: It would be interesting to learn what is left alone.
16:04:34 <francois> ACTION: SeanP to send a list of content-types for which content transformation applies
16:04:34 <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - SeanP
16:04:39 <francois> ACTION: Patterson to send a list of content-types for which content transformation applies
16:04:39 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-725 - Send a list of content-types for which content transformation applies [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-04-01].
16:04:49 <SeanP> s/mention CT/mention content types/
16:04:50 <jo> action- 4
16:05:41 <Zakim> -jo
16:05:42 <Zakim> -MartinJ
16:05:42 <Zakim> -SeanP
16:05:47 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:05:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:05:49 <MartinJ> MartinJ has left #bpwg
16:05:57 <francois> zakim, list attendees
16:05:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +049238aaaa, +0208995aabb, francois, jo, +0207287aacc, +1.630.414.aadd, rob, +0777613aaee, SeanP, MartinJ, +1.630.773.aaff
16:10:42 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, francois, in MWI_BPWG(CTTF)11:00AM
16:10:46 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG(CTTF)11:00AM has ended
16:10:47 <Zakim> Attendees were +049238aaaa, +0208995aabb, francois, jo, +0207287aacc, +1.630.414.aadd, rob, +0777613aaee, SeanP, MartinJ, +1.630.773.aaff
16:14:42 <rob> rob has left #bpwg
16:23:08 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:23:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:29:09 <francois> i/...Maybe we could address this next week since everyone/I do not see any possibility to embed original headers in the generic case without requiring changes on the content providers side/
16:29:11 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:29:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:43:37 <francois> RRSAgent, bye
16:43:37 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-actions.rdf :
16:43:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: daoust to check why HTTP RFC states comments MAY be removed from a VIA header. [1]
16:43:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-irc#T15-19-24
16:43:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: daoust to raise discussion on session settings vs persistent settings for 2.5.1 and 2.5.3 [2]
16:43:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-irc#T15-37-50
16:43:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to raise discussion on list as to clarification of 2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict server preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the server."  [3]
16:43:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-irc#T15-43-36
16:43:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Patterson to send a list of content-types for which content transformation applies [5]
16:43:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/25-bpwg-irc#T16-04-39