See also: IRC log
<francois> latest draft
Francois: Had ed. meeting with Jo
about draft.
... didn't change any of the guidelines--just removed a couple
of paragraphs and moved some things around.
... think it is much clearer this way.
... editorial notes were reworded to make easier to read.
... any comments?
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder if anyone had had the chance to read it?
Jo: How many people have had a chance to review this?
I read it.
<Martin1> I read it but not very long ago
Heiko: What about editorial notes at the end?
Francois: Notes are things we are
working on, like POWDER.
... I have a comment about section 3.2 that should be flagged
as normative.
... Jo had a comment that maybe we should remove the sections
that say that the rest of the section is "normative",
"informative".
... I think we should keep the "normative", "informative"
parts.
Jo: I think we should switch the requirements as normative.
Martin: What does it mean that requirements are normative?
Jo: Good point. If we were to do
away with 3.1 and put that into 3.2 it is more a high level
description of what proxies must do.
... Whatever we call it, I think 3.2 works as a normative
section.
... Why don't we call it high level feature set or something
like that.
Martin: I think it would be enough to change 3.2 and call it something other than requirements.
Jo: I am proposing that we remove requirements from this document altogether since requirements are already in the Landscape document.
Francois: Probably doesn't need
to be done right now,however.
... why don't we do that but not today.
... we'll state the requirements in a more formal way and put
that into 3.2.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for section 3, rewrite 3.1 in a normative way and fusion it with 3.2. Requirements are listed in CT-landscape doc
<Martin1> +1
+1
<francois> RESOLUTION: for section 3, rewrite 3.1 in a normative way and fusion it with 3.2. Requirements are listed in CT-landscape doc
Francois: Anyone have any objection to publishing the document as it stands as a FPWD?
Francois: Dom suggested that we
should change the title to reference "mobile"
... although there are no parts of the document that are
specific to mobile.
... will probably get more exposure to the mobile communitiy if
we include a reference to mobile in the titile.
Heiko: You are correct that we
should add "mobile".
... also we are not talking about CT, but requirements for the
environment when CT is done
Francois: I think if we add something like "prerequisites" it will lessen the impact of the doc.
Heiko: We're not really talking about CT though.
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to say the title should remain Content Transformation guidelines possibly with the addition of some mobile words
Francois: I would prefer to stick with CT in the title.
Jo: I think it should be named CT
Guidelines...
... whether we should include mobile in the title--the
guidelines are not specifically mobile.
... I think "mobile" is unnecessarily restrictive of scope.
Francois: We are the "mobile" BPWG, so that should be good enough.
<francois> Who wants to add a ref to "Mobile"?
SeanP: Don't think it is necessary to change the title since it is from the "mobile" BPWG
<dom> [but that won't be visible to most people before they actually start to read the document, FWIW]
Francois: I actually was saying the opposite that someone from the public wouldn't necessarily know that it was from a mobile group.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: title stays "Content Transformation Guidelines"
+1
<Martin1> +1
<jo> +1
<Magnus> +1
<francois> RESOLUTION: title stays "Content Transformation Guidelines"
Francois: It was suggested that
we come up with something less obsure for the abstract.
... I tend to agree that the abstract may not be really
clear.
<francois> This document provides guidance for content providers and content
<francois> transformation proxies on how they can better work together to deliver
<francois> Web content to mobile devices.
Francois: Should we change it to something like what Dom proposed?
<jo> How about: This document provides guidance to content transformation proxies and content providers as to how inter work .
<jo> This document provides guidance to content transformation proxies and content providers as to how inter work when delivering Web content.
SeanP: Dom's text looks good to me--we could use "mobile devices" as an example and not restrict it to mobile.
<hgerlach> +1
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: abstract text "This document provides guidance to content transformation proxies and content providers as to how inter work when delivering Web content"
Heiko: The document should
mention the past and the benefits for both sides.
... should include a sentence to highlight that.
Jo: don't like including "better" since it anchors the doc to a point in time.
Heiko: How about calling it "Interworking guidelines for content transformation proxies"?
Francois: Seems less clear.
Jo: Instead of spending a lot of time on this, why don't I try to come up with something that is more explicable.
I'm OK with the proposed abstract text as well.
<francois> RESOLUTION: abstract text "This document provides guidance to content transformation proxies and content providers as to how inter work when delivering Web content"
Francois: We'll use the proposed text for the time being and maybe fix it later.
Jo: We've got two editorial comments that we want to turn into actual notes.
<francois> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0016.html
Francois: In 3.2.3 there is an editorial note that we may want to change to an actual note (with some next text that will be pasted in momentarily).
<jo> Allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems for content providers since there is no mechanism for content providers to establish which lists they should be on, nor any generic mechanism though which they can check or change their status. There is also no generic vocabulary for transformation options other than "on" and "off", which can more effectively be communicated using...
<jo> Note:
<jo> ...the cache-control: no-transform option.
Francois: OK with the first sentence--I don't see the connection with the vocabulary for the transformation options.
Jo: The point is that maintaining
lists is a simplistic model for what people actually do.
... my assumption is that it is usually more than just yes and
no.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change current editorial note to say - Note: Allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems for content providers since there is no mechanism for them to establish which lists they should be on, nor any generic mechanism though which they can check or change their status.
<francois> +1
<francois> RESOLUTION: Change current editorial note to say - Note: Allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems for content providers since there is no mechanism for them to establish which lists they should be on, nor any generic mechanism though which they can check or change their status.
Francois: Note on idempotency of GET requests.
Jo: Dom mentioned that my definition for idempotent was wrong.
Francois: Can change "i.e." to "and".
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: in note on idempotent change i.e. to and and change must to is often
Jo: Rob had the point about following a link from email.
<francois> RESOLUTION: in note on idempotent change i.e. to and and change must to is often
Francois: Should we replace the ASCII art with DOM's image?
Jo: I may not use DOM's picture, but I'll replace that ASCII art.
Francois: Everybody OK with
publishing as FPWD?
... will present to the entire working group.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request WG to ask for transition of CT Guidelines to FPWD
<francois> RESOLUTION: Request WG to ask for transition of CT Guidelines to FPWD
Francois: will probably publish at the beginning of next week.
Heiko: Should we run it by some CT vendors?
Francois: We have some CT vendors as part of the WG and task force.
Jo: I think we should do some
outreach on this. The purpose of the FPWD is to get more people
to read it.
... What would people think about having a workshop on this to
get some industry support.
Magnus: I'll make sure our design team is aware of this.
Martin: I think with workshop is a good idea although I can't commit to it yet.
Jo: I think it would be a good
idea for participants on this call to talk to their
organizations about this.
... I think we should try to do something fairly
soon.
<jo> ACTION: Daoust to work with jo to figure out the details of a workshop on Content Transformation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-730 - Work with jo to figure out the details of a workshop on Content Transformation [on François Daoust - due 2008-04-15].
<jo> ACTION: jo to enact changes resolved in this meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-731 - Enact changes resolved in this meeting [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-15].
<Magnus> bye bye
<hgerlach> cheers
Francois: Remember to do your actions!