IRC log of bpwg on 2008-03-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

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

15:34:10 [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