13:57:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:57:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-irc
13:57:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:57:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:57:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:57:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:57:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:57:46 <trackbot> Date: 05 June 2008
13:59:14 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started
13:59:21 <Zakim> +jeffs
13:59:29 <DKA> DKA has joined #bpwg
13:59:40 <Zakim> +DKA
13:59:50 <francois> Regrets: AlanC, Kemp, AdamC, Yeliz, DRooks, Murari, Abel, EdM, MartinJ, rob, Scott
13:59:51 <jo> zakim, code please?
13:59:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:00:01 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
14:00:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeffs, DKA
14:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, jeffs, trackbot, francois, matt, dom
14:00:09 <matt> Present- Matt
14:00:18 <miguel> miguel has joined #bpwg
14:00:53 <Zakim> +Francois
14:01:27 <Zakim> +[W3C-Spain]
14:01:55 <miguel> Zakim, [W3C-Spain] is me
14:01:55 <Zakim> +miguel; got it
14:02:00 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0005.html
14:02:06 <francois> Chair: DKA
14:02:40 <Zakim> +jo
14:03:25 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
14:03:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeffs, DKA, Francois, miguel, jo
14:03:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see miguel, DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, jeffs, trackbot, francois, matt, dom
14:03:39 <Zakim> +Dom
14:03:49 <jo> zakim, who is making noise?
14:04:01 <Zakim> jo, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeffs (23%), DKA (8%)
14:04:14 <jo> zakim, mute jeffs
14:04:14 <Zakim> jeffs should now be muted
14:04:32 <Eman> Eman has joined #bpwg
14:04:37 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
14:04:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeffs (muted), DKA, Francois, miguel, jo, Dom (muted)
14:04:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see Eman, miguel, DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, jeffs, trackbot, francois, matt, dom
14:04:58 <francois> Regrets+ Bryan
14:06:17 <miguel> agenda 2: Accesibility
14:06:21 <jo> Topic: Accesibility Document Status
14:06:34 <miguel> jo: any comments?
14:06:38 <jo> s/agenda 2: Accesibility//
14:06:44 <jo> s/jo:/dka:/
14:07:24 <miguel> Topic: MobileOk
14:07:49 <miguel> jo: new editors draft
14:07:52 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080602 new mobileOK draft
14:08:39 <manrique> manrique has joined #bpwg
14:08:58 <miguel> jo: document nearly completed
14:09:29 <miguel> jo: it will be easy change User-Agent change to take care extensibility
14:09:46 <jo> s/jo: new/dka: new/
14:10:01 <Zakim> +berrueta
14:10:34 <miguel> Zakim, berrueta is manrique
14:10:34 <Zakim> +manrique; got it
14:11:17 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Wording ref "exactly" should be modified under discussion of the User Agent header to allow implementations that are crawlers to add additional stuff identifying themselves
14:11:57 <francois> q+
14:12:16 <DKA> ack francois
14:12:51 <dom> [I agree with francois this needs clarification]
14:12:59 <miguel> francois: wondering about extending User Agent string
14:13:09 <Zakim> +Kai_Dietrich
14:13:45 <dom> [I think we should allow for additional product tokens, additional comments]
14:14:00 <dom> [but making sure they first product token is the one set by the spec]
14:14:30 <dom> ack me
14:15:02 <miguel> francois: discussing about additional comments should be at the beggining or ending of User Agent
14:16:39 <dom> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.43
14:16:46 <dom> User-Agent     = "User-Agent" ":" 1*( product | comment )
14:17:01 <dom> -> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.8 Syntax for Product tokens
14:18:01 <dom> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec2.html#sec2
14:18:05 <dom> ; comment
14:18:05 <dom>     A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text, starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This is a simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the specifications. 
14:18:16 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
14:18:29 <dom>  Comments can be included in some HTTP header fields by surrounding the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed in fields containing "comment" as part of their field value definition. In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field value.
14:18:29 <dom>        comment        = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
14:18:29 <dom>        ctext          = <any TEXT excluding "(" and ")">
14:20:45 <dom> quoted-pair    = "\" CHAR
14:21:43 <dom> s/; comment//
14:21:56 <dom> s/A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text, starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This is a simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the specifications.//
14:23:08 <miguel> [dom, jo and francois arguing about the number of comments that could go in the user agent string]
14:23:25 <dom> The first product token should be "W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0"
14:25:27 <Bob_Cratchett> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token containing W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment containing (see ... yada yada)
14:25:45 <dom> +1
14:25:52 <jeffs> +1
14:26:07 <dom> yada yada = http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc
14:26:14 <miguel> +1
14:26:19 <DKA> +1
14:26:22 <Kai> +1
14:26:23 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:27:39 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token set-to W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment set to  (see  http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
14:27:52 <Zakim> +SeanP
14:28:10 <Kai_> Kai_ has joined #bpwg
14:28:53 <miguel> RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token set-to W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment set to  (see  http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
14:29:39 <jo> ACTION: Jo to confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of pednatry for the group
14:29:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-767 - Confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of pednatry for the group [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-06-12].
14:30:07 <jo> s/pednatry/pedantry/
14:30:40 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending Jo's change about user-agent, the group agrees to publish this document as a Last Call Working Draft, with a comments period of 3 weeks, with a proposal to move directly to PR if possible
14:31:20 <miguel> RESOLUTION: Pending Jo's change about user-agent, the group agrees to publish this document as a Last Call Working Draft, with a comments period of 3 weeks, with a proposal to move directly to PR if possible
14:31:22 <DKA> +1
14:31:26 <jeffs> +1
14:31:29 <dom> +1
14:34:57 <miguel> Topic BP 2.0
14:35:32 <dom> s/Topic /Topic: /
14:35:43 <DKA> zakim, unmute jeffs
14:35:43 <Zakim> jeffs should no longer be muted
14:35:47 <miguel> DKA: anything to discuss?
14:36:45 <miguel> X: in the process of making an input document. it'll be ready for next call
14:37:03 <jeffs> s/X/DKA
14:37:50 <DKA> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd3jk8v_114tkbg6kgj
14:42:30 <dom> q+
14:42:34 <dom> ack me
14:44:02 <francois> [Re. CT: current schedule is to present a candidate draft for Last Call to the main body of the working group next week, to hopefully decide to publish the doc as Last Call during the F2F in Sophia]
14:45:57 <jo> q+ to wonder if the editors of BP2 will be there?
14:46:06 <francois> i/[Re. CT/Topic: F2F Agenda Discussion/
14:46:30 <DKA> ack jo
14:46:30 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder if the editors of BP2 will be there?
14:46:47 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/results registration results
14:46:50 <dom> [Adam is planning on attending]
14:47:59 <dom> Kai: quick note on the status of mobileOK Pro
14:48:03 <dom> ... we have completed all the tests
14:48:11 <dom> ... the task force has been asked the review the document
14:48:20 <dom> ... will submit the document to the group as a whole shortly
14:48:27 <dom> DKA: will that be on time for the F2F?
14:48:31 <dom> Kai: probably, yes
14:48:33 <jeffs> s/asked the review/asked to review
14:48:39 <dom> DKA: so I think we should go through it at the F2F
14:49:02 <jo> i/Kai: /scribenick: dom/
14:49:23 <dom> ... so that we can give actions, decide its next steps, Rec-track or not
14:50:07 <dom> Kai: the document might be better served if we receive detailed feedback before the f2f
14:50:18 <dom> ... and keep a high level discussion at the F2F meeting
14:50:24 <jo> q+ to note that the document has not received any proper attention in the body of the group
14:50:29 <DKA> ack jo
14:50:29 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that the document has not received any proper attention in the body of the group
14:51:07 <dom> Jo: it's good that TF can focus on specific items, but let's note that the group hasn't considered the document in sufficient details
14:51:23 <dom> ... I think it would be wishful thinking that people will get into the details of the spec before the f2f
14:51:42 <dom> ... esp. as we'll ask people to look at the CT guidelines in more details for a LC
14:51:57 <dom> ... so I think it might worth going through the document in some details during the F2F
14:52:13 <dom> ... and we certainly need to discuss its future
14:52:43 <dom> DKA: yeah, I think that would be useful
14:52:51 <dom> ... it was very useful for the CT document back in Seoul
14:53:19 <dom> ... I'll take this as input to update the agenda
14:53:34 <dom> ... is there any other logistical or process related issue we need to discuss in the F2F?
14:53:42 <francois> q+
14:53:52 <dom> Kai: What about POWDER and its connection to mobileOK?
14:54:07 <dom> DKA: will we have the right people there to discuss this? I don't think PhilA is attending
14:54:11 <dom> Jo: No, he isn't
14:54:34 <dom> Kai: I can give whatever information I have at the F2F if that helps the group decides
14:54:47 <dom> DKA: I think it's worthwhile to put it on the agenda as information
14:54:53 <dom> ... but probably too early to make a decision
14:55:04 <dom> ... (on whether we want to adopt it for mobileOK)
14:55:07 <DKA> q?
14:55:10 <DKA> ack francois
14:55:10 <jeffs> s/information/informational
14:55:37 <dom> francois: we still need to address the normative vs informative status of the CT guidelines
14:55:55 <jo> q+ to note that the normative language has been removed from the next draft ...
14:56:02 <dom> ... SeanP supported the idea of making the document normative
14:56:06 <dom> ... which would require a rechartering
14:56:15 <dom> DKA: good point, worth discussion indeed
14:56:21 <dom> ... I would prefer a normative document as well
14:56:25 <dom> ... I'll put on the agenda
14:56:53 <DKA> q?
14:56:57 <DKA> ack jo
14:56:57 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that the normative language has been removed from the next draft ...
14:56:59 <dom> ... We can put this in the context of the charter extension
14:57:37 <dom> Jo: I've removed the "normative status" language from the doc
14:57:53 <dom> ... my preference would be that we issue the next LCWD independently of the resolution of that question
14:58:21 <dom> francois: yeah, whatever the decision we make, there is no way we can publish the LCWD as normative in the next month
14:58:30 <dom> Jo: indeed
14:58:44 <dom> ... as we know, we can have as many LC as we like
14:59:11 <dom> ... if we agree to recharter, we can publish a 2nd LC
14:59:32 <dom> [note that the change of status wouldn't actually require a new LC, I believe]
14:59:45 <jeffs> if not charter for that now, don't do that now
15:00:19 <dom> ack me
15:01:10 <francois> dom: my understanding is that the only requirement is that there be at least 150 days between the first time the document is published as normative and its publication as Proposed Rec
15:02:24 <dom> DKA: if there are companies that have IPR that are associated with content transformation that might be attached with the guidelines
15:02:30 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately
15:02:55 <jeffs> understands now... lawyers
15:03:00 <dom> ... if the document is normative, then the patents held by companies in the group needs to license on an RF-basis, right?
15:03:01 <Kai_> q+ to say that status of being normative does not change anything about existing patents
15:03:04 <dom> ack me
15:03:11 <DKA> ack kai
15:03:11 <Zakim> Kai_, you wanted to say that status of being normative does not change anything about existing patents
15:05:08 <dom> d RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately
15:05:11 <dom> RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately
15:05:21 <dom> s/d RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately//
15:05:29 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html dom
15:05:56 <dom> zakim, mute me
15:05:56 <Zakim> Dom should now be muted
15:06:29 <jo> {Proposed text for CT Guidelines: 			<div2 id="sec-rfc2119">
15:06:31 <jo> 				<head>Interpretation of RFC 2119 Key Words</head>
15:06:33 <jo> 			    <p>This document is not normative <phrase role="ednote">Need link to definition</phrase> and it is inappropriate to claim conformance to it. Implementors of this Recommendation who wish to promote effective inter operability of Web content will, however, interpret the key words
15:06:35 <jo> 						<rfc2119>must</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>must not</rfc2119>,
15:06:37 <jo> 					<rfc2119>required</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>shall</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>shall
15:06:39 <jo> 					not</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>should</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>should not</rfc2119>,
15:06:41 <jo> 						<rfc2119>recommended</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>may</rfc2119>, and
15:06:43 <jo> 						<rfc2119>optional </rfc2119>in this Recommendation as
15:06:45 <jo> 					described in <bibref ref="ref-rfc-2119"/> .</p>
15:06:47 <jo> 			</div2>
15:08:09 <dom> ack me
15:09:18 <francois> dom: big difference is that in the informative case, participants are only required to disclose patents of others they know about
15:09:41 <francois> ... whereas in the normative case, any undisclosed patent falls under the RF policy
15:10:46 <SeanP> q+
15:11:32 <DKA> ack seanp
15:12:03 <Zakim> -Dom
15:12:26 <DKA> q?
15:13:09 <francois> SeanP: Reason to support "normative" was for legitimacy reasons, not really for patent issues. If that is not the case, then we're not strongly supporting the normative change.
15:13:24 <francois> i/dom: big difference/ScribeNick: francois/
15:13:55 <Zakim> -Kai_Dietrich
15:13:56 <Zakim> -DKA
15:13:57 <francois> DKA: OK, we'll have the discussion during the F2F
15:13:58 <manrique> see you
15:13:59 <Zakim> -SeanP
15:14:01 <Zakim> -jeffs
15:14:01 <Zakim> -jo
15:14:05 <francois> ... Session adjourned, thanks everybody
15:14:10 <Zakim> -manrique
15:14:12 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:14:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:14:16 <Kai_> Kai_ has left #bpwg
15:14:18 <Zakim> -Francois
15:14:19 <Zakim> -miguel
15:14:19 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended
15:14:21 <Zakim> Attendees were jeffs, DKA, Francois, miguel, jo, Dom, manrique, Kai_Dietrich, SeanP
15:14:39 <jo> i/SeanP/scribenick: francois/
15:14:59 <jo> i/SeanP:/scribenick: francois/
15:15:00 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:15:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:16:25 <francois> i/Topic: Accesibility Document Status/ScribeNick: miguel/
15:16:26 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:16:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:17:04 <francois> i/Date: 05 June 2008/Scribenick: miguel/
15:17:05 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:17:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:17:39 <francois> trackbot, gtfl
15:17:39 <trackbot> Sorry, francois, I don't understand 'trackbot, gtfl'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
15:21:35 <jo> trackbot, we are most grateful for your graciously rendered services
15:21:35 <trackbot> Sorry, jo, I don't understand 'trackbot, we are most grateful for your graciously rendered services'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
15:22:33 <jo> trackbot, will you please arrange for your colleagues to gtfl
15:22:33 <trackbot> Sorry, jo, I don't understand 'trackbot, will you please arrange for your colleagues to gtfl'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
15:22:57 <jo> oh, well, maybe dom will do that in another revision, francois
15:23:34 <francois> :-)
15:23:38 <francois> RRSAgent, bye
15:23:38 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:23:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of pednatry for the group [1]
15:23:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-irc#T14-29-39