13:55:50 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:55:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/08-bpwg-irc 13:55:52 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:55:52 Zakim has joined #bpwg 13:55:54 Zakim, this will be BPWG 13:55:54 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 13:55:55 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:55:55 Date: 08 July 2008 13:56:02 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0003.html 13:56:06 Chair: francois 13:56:26 Regrets: Pontus, AndrewS 14:00:24 rob has joined #bpwg 14:01:35 MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started 14:01:36 jo has joined #bpwg 14:01:42 +hgerlach 14:01:57 zakim, code? 14:01:57 the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 14:02:19 +rob 14:02:36 hgerlach has joined #bpwg 14:02:37 SeanP has joined #bpwg 14:02:54 +jo 14:03:10 +Francois 14:05:18 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:05:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/08-bpwg-minutes.html jo 14:05:39 Regrets+ Bryan 14:06:20 zakim, who is here? 14:06:20 On the phone I see hgerlach, rob, jo, Francois 14:06:22 On IRC I see SeanP, hgerlach, jo, rob, Zakim, RRSAgent, francois, trackbot, dom, matt2MIT 14:06:27 +SeanP 14:07:26 scribe: jo 14:08:12 Topic: Blaming Jo for Incredible Delays 14:08:55 s/Blaming Jo for Incredible Delays/Allow and Disallow Lists 14:09:25 francois: I summarized the choices as I see them in the agenda, and I was wondering if this is a good picture 14:09:53 ... we should wait for the new draft before deciding unless we can come up with a clear consensus now 14:10:03 ... we have three choices (as discussed in the agenda) 14:11:22 ... my personal preference would be for b), but are there any other points of view to take into account? 14:11:26 q+ 14:11:35 q+ 14:11:39 ack jo 14:12:31 jo: I think we can step around this one actually, either with "unspecified means", either by saying "prior interaction with the server" 14:12:44 ... and then we can then leave that open 14:13:56 ... The important thing is IMO that the so-called algorithm is self-healing, and if we keep it this way, we don't really need to go in the like/don't like allow/disallow lists discussion 14:15:20 jo: I think we can avoid referring to specific internal mechansims by referring tot he notion of p"previous experience" and "a priori" knowledege, providing that the algorithm makes it plain that no matter what the proxy thinks it knows, but whatever means it thinks it knows it, it must act on the evidence that is presented by the server first and formost 14:15:37 s/formost/foremost/ 14:17:05 ack hgerlach 14:17:18 ... we can gain consensus hopefully by focussing on mitigating the undesirable effects without prohibiting the use of them 14:17:40 q+ 14:17:42 heiko: two issues here ... 14:18:35 ... role of allow and disallow list is one question, the other question is setting up an allow list for setting up a different user agent string 14:19:08 ... the first issue is allow or disallow transformation the second is allow or disallow bogus user agent headers 14:19:25 francois: but not mentioning them surely avoids the issue 14:20:06 heiko: if you are allowed to bypass this is a different issue to no-transform 14:20:22 ... we need to think about what we are allowing or disallowinging 14:20:40 s/disallowinging/disallowing/ 14:21:16 francois: allow lists to discuss the possibility of sending altered headers 14:21:50 ... and the second to allow overriding cache control, two different uses of the list 14:22:19 q+ to say that as a point of principle one should avoid mentioning internal mechanisms that are proprietary to the proxy 14:22:29 ack SeanP 14:23:22 seanp: one issue with b) is that it deals only with the response whereas one would need to look at such lists on the request 14:23:36 ... there may be a disconnect as to what people are using such lists for now 14:23:48 ... so if we mention at all we should make this clear 14:24:25 francois: actually I think b) only deals with the HTTP request to know if you have to send another one 14:24:41 sorry I got a 2nd call will be back soon 14:25:22 seanp: if you have allow list you can send altered headers straight away 14:25:34 ... you are saying that is the prior knowledge 14:26:16 francois: the point jo emphasised it that it makes sense to send altered headers straight way but it needs refeeshing from time to time 14:26:33 s/refeeshing/refreshing/ 14:26:39 ... it really depends 14:27:27 ... ithink we should postpone the decision till we see the new document 14:27:31 ack jo 14:27:31 jo, you wanted to say that as a point of principle one should avoid mentioning internal mechanisms that are proprietary to the proxy 14:28:59 jo: Allow/Disallow are not really externally visible, so we should not step into the behavior of the Proxy, and not mention them. You can infer that there are such lists. Forms that users may fill are not within scope of this specification. 14:29:34 s/Forms that users may fill are not within scope of this specification./we deal with the interactions between the server and the proxy 14:29:50 francois: suggest we leave it and move on 14:30:18 Topic: Persistent Expression of User Preferences 14:30:29 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jul/0002.html Jo's points commented by Sean and me 14:31:12 q+ to say that the algorithm referred to above should help with this too 14:31:26 ack jo 14:31:26 jo, you wanted to say that the algorithm referred to above should help with this too 14:33:31 jo: Thinks that it is linked to the algorithm. If we're clever, I guess we'll say that the proxy should prompt the user again when the response from the server differs from the previous one. 14:33:49 ... a bit woolly but we cannot do any better, I think. 14:34:33 jo: I think that the key point is that when a user has a persistent expression of preference we want to make sure that if a host changes its operation the user gets the chance to re-express their preferences 14:35:07 ... and this requires the proxy maintain some kind of "prior knowledge" 14:36:47 francois: seanp can you clarify something from your email ... the origin server can tell that the request has passed through the CT proxy, if it changes its operation it can tell the CT proxy this by sending a 406 status with a vary header 14:37:21 seanp: basically the origin server can tell ... by looking at the X-Headers 14:37:51 ... so it can determine that the server now does not want the CT proxy to do transformation any more 14:38:12 ... so the CT proxy will know to not do transformation for that site any more 14:38:40 ... I thought tha was why we had the point under 4.3 in here 14:38:52 francois: {mumbles} 14:39:29 seanp: origin server can tell that it is going through a proxy so what we need is for the origin server to show that is is now aware 14:40:10 ... couple of cases one where is was aware and changes its mind, and the other is that it wasn't aware and now doesn't want transformation 14:40:53 francois: there we are using the response from the server as a direct communication with the proxy rather than having end-to-end significance 14:41:19 ... the problem is that the 406 is not intended for the end-users 14:41:38 seanp: but surely that's what we do when it works the other way round 14:42:01 francois: but in that case it really is saying "I can't handle your device" 14:42:18 ... in your illustration its the server telling the proxy to change its ways 14:42:32 seanp: sure but the practical results are the same 14:42:33 q+ 14:42:39 ack jo 14:44:02 jo: not sure that what Seanp proposed doesn't require the server to know about tasting and prior requests, hope we can sweep this all together in a new draft 14:44:19 ... I have put a placeholder for illustrations of interactions 14:44:32 ... so we can make sure we have tested this all out 14:44:54 francois: anything else we need to sweep up 14:45:12 ... trciky part is about cps that offer users a choice of representation 14:45:34 .. and how to tell proxy that they are handling the choice themselves 14:46:11 ... don't know if there are any technical possibilities, not sure we can decorate this any further 14:46:19 ... anyone got a view on that? 14:46:44 jo: think that this is a problem and am hoping to find an answer! 14:46:46 +1 14:46:51 q+ 14:46:57 ack hgerlach 14:47:11 francois: clarifying that it's best practice for the server to offer such a choice 14:47:38 heiko: server can offer a menu offering choices 14:47:56 .. but this will require an additional database 14:48:14 ... e.g. how to determine that there is a .mobi page for something that is not in the .mobi domain 14:48:28 francois: can advertise via the linkelement 14:48:46 heiko: how can can the proxy know that the pages exist 14:49:09 ... how do they know where the mobile page is 14:50:02 francois: there are two things, the server can already tell the proxy that such pages exist using the link element, but the difficulty is telling the proxy that they also offer that choice in a user visible way 14:50:58 ... there are a number of problems, e.g. that this may offer this at a site level, could be POWDER, but that is scope for future work 14:51:27 heiko: no there can be a database for that purpose even if the site owner has not set this information? 14:51:45 francois: what kind of database? 14:51:55 heiko: well there is the .mobi database 14:52:18 francois: the ct proxy could consult such a database? 14:52:22 heiko: yes 14:52:28 q+ 14:52:40 q+ to say that databases are out of scope 14:53:05 francois: there is no fixed relationship between domain names 14:53:07 ack SeanP 14:53:38 seanp: there is lots of way to map between mobile sites and desktop sites and mobile sites and vice versa 14:53:50 ... so this seems like a CT vendor issue 14:54:16 ... if the page doesn't contain the issue then its a CT vendor issue 14:54:48 ack jo 14:54:48 jo, you wanted to say that databases are out of scope 14:54:52 ... there are a million different ways of doing this, no algoritm as such 14:54:55 ack me 14:55:32 jo: out of scope, since we're talking about using HTTP. We should not refer specifically to any specific implementation mechanisms 14:55:51 jo: we shouldn't refer specifically to particular implementation mechanisms 14:56:51 francois: final issue ... CT proxies providing links to alternative representations ... I did include a Proposed Resolution, in the agenda but let's leave that one too 14:57:03 ... for the time being 14:58:29 jo: hope to have new draft by tomorrow or by thursday 14:59:02 jo: I'm halfway through the document, we may have an update 14:59:13 s/jo: I'm halfway through the document, we may have an update// 14:59:37 -1 bye 14:59:45 -hgerlach 14:59:56 -jo 14:59:57 -SeanP 14:59:57 -rob 14:59:59 -Francois 14:59:59 MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended 15:00:00 Attendees were hgerlach, rob, jo, Francois, SeanP 15:00:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:00:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/08-bpwg-minutes.html jo 15:27:30 rob has left #bpwg 15:32:13 RRSAgent, bye 15:32:13 I see no action items