Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

New draft of CT Guidelines

<francois> CT draft version 1l

Francois: Thanks Jo for creating the new draft.

<jo> me!

<hgerlach> heiko

Francois: New draft goes in the right direction; looks fantastic; seems clearer; like new table of contents.

Heiko: In 1.3 there is a mention that WML won't work.
... At the beginning of the document this sounds like a killer.
... could become major issue at beginning of document in scope.

Francois: I understand, but it needs to be said up front.

<jo> I think that is a reasonable presentational point. the point is made later on

<jo> we could remove it from the scope statement

Heiko: The question is whether a WAP gateway is the same as a CT proxy.

<hgerlach> +1

Francois: WML note could appear later on as long as it is somewhere.

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: REmove Caveat on WML from scoping statement

<francois> +1

<jo> +1

RESOLUTION: REmove Caveat on WML from scoping statement

Heiko: In 1.4, the requirements contain a link to the CT landscape. Don't understand why we have 2 documents.

<jo> landscape document is not finished

Francois: Landscape document is not complete yet. Need to revisit it in light of what we have done. Will be published as a note.

<hgerlach> What are the plans on that item?

Francois: Landscape document is not included in CT Guidelines for size reasons.

Jo: I think it needs to be revisited too. Main reason for doing the Landscape document was to kind of get warmed up and figure out what we were talking about.

<jo> timescale is asap, like every thing else :-)

Francois: We're focusing on the CT Guidelines because it is most important. Once we get to last call, we can go back to the Landscape document.

Heiko: Next comment, in 3.1.4 the editorial note.
... Don't think the segmenting of a page will be affected by the no-cache directive.

Francois: Do we really need a section on pagination?

<jo> the editorial note is there only because there is a possible confusion

Francois: Following no-cache for pagination would mean that the CT proxy could not paginate and the user could possibly not read the page.
... My thinking is that section 3.1.4 is not needed.

Jo: Thinking as a content provider, the CT provider may not want to send content that will be paginated.
... Willing to take the section out.

Heiko: Should the subsequent pages contain the no-cache directive.

Francois: Why don't we take this section out for now and see if anyone has objections later.

<francois> ACTION: daoust to send a summary of the pagination note (3.1.4) to the mailing-list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-811 - Send a summary of the pagination note (3.1.4) to the mailing-list [on François Daoust - due 2008-07-22].

Heiko: In 3.1.5.3, there is another editorial note that I would like to understand.
... What does it mean about standing in the way?

Francois: What it means is that the proxy should not block the origin server from providing different representations.

Jo: This is the point that the user should be able to express his/her preferences to the origin server if possible. Need to think about this more.

Heiko: 3.2.3.1--Use of Vary
... This content type of application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml is mentioned here but not in the heuristics.
... should be mentioned in heuristics.

Francois: We took a resolution to remove mention of content types in the document, but I can't remember why.

<francois> ACTION: daoust to dig in the archives to check reason not to mention content types in the list of heuristics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-812 - Dig in the archives to check reason not to mention content types in the list of heuristics [on François Daoust - due 2008-07-22].

Jo and Sean: We can't remember why either.

Heiko: 3.3.6. There are three question marks. What are these about?

Jo: Bad link, that's all.
... supposed to be a reference to mobileOK Basic.

Heiko: Linearization, why is this in heuristics?

Francois: Had discussions about this and decided to put it here.

Heiko: 3.3.6.2 Link Re-writing

Francois: There requirement was that it must be possible to make a secure end to end connection, not that it must make a secure end-to-end connection.
... That's why there is the requirement to notify the user.

Heiko: Don't like this.
... For a proxy it is impossible to have the end-to-end connectivity.

Francois: That is why we mention the link re-writing since it will break the end-to-end connectivity.

Heiko: Maybe add a sentence about the user being able to get end-to-end connectivity as an option.

Francois: That's why we have the sentence about the user being able to avoid the link re-writing.
... Could you write something up about your ideas about this section, Heiko?

<hgerlach> +1

<francois> ACTION: heiko to draft some clearer wording of 3.3.6.2 on HTTPS link re-writing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-813 - Draft some clearer wording of 3.3.6.2 on HTTPS link re-writing [on Heiko Gerlach - due 2008-07-22].

Heiko: Comment about the example. Saw that you removed allow/disallow list. OK, but I don't see how you can detect that a 200 response == a 406

Francois: Difficult to detect; can include a LINK element.

Heiko: Why remove allow/disallow lists?

Francois: Not completely resolved to remove the lists, but I see Jo's point about not mentioning them at all since they cause a lot of disagreements.

<hgerlach> +1ok

Francois: There is a heuristic in the document that allows them without actually mentioning them.

Jo: I agree that 3.1.5.2 is very densely worded and I may try to rewrite it, but it says what it means.

Heiko: Had some trouble understanding document without rereading it several times.

Jo: If you have some problems with how something is worded, feel free to contribute clearer wording.
... I believe that we are very close to getting there--I think one more revision is needed; hopefully no more than 2 more.

Francois: Agree that we are close.

Review and close Jo's actions

<francois> ACTION-732?

<trackbot> ACTION-732 -- Jo Rabin to raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP links -- due 2008-04-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/732

<francois> Close ACTION-732

<trackbot> ACTION-732 Raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP links closed

<francois> ACTION-766?

<trackbot> ACTION-766 -- Jo Rabin to add note describing the circumstances of choosing the X-Device prefix and explaining that it's not necessarily the actual device headers and other weasel words, yada yada -- due 2008-06-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/766

Francois: Action is done, discussion can be raised if needed.

<francois> Close ACTION-766

<trackbot> ACTION-766 Add note describing the circumstances of choosing the X-Device prefix and explaining that it's not necessarily the actual device headers and other weasel words, yada yada closed

<francois> ACTION-770?

<trackbot> ACTION-770 -- Jo Rabin to remove "semi-persistent" in 3.2.3 -- due 2008-06-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/770

<francois> Close ACTION-770

<trackbot> ACTION-770 Remove "semi-persistent" in 3.2.3 closed

<francois> ACTION-777?

<trackbot> ACTION-777 -- Jo Rabin to edit 4.1.2 according to above resolution -- due 2008-06-23 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/777

Francois: 770 could trigger more discussion.

<francois> Close ACTION-777

<trackbot> ACTION-777 Edit 4.1.2 according to above resolution closed

<francois> ACTION-778?

<trackbot> ACTION-778 -- Jo Rabin to add the stuff on possible use of OPTIONS to the appendix -- due 2008-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/778

<francois> Close ACTION-778

<trackbot> ACTION-778 Add the stuff on possible use of OPTIONS to the appendix closed

<francois> ACTION-779?

<trackbot> ACTION-779 -- Jo Rabin to transcribe points 7 8 9 and 11 of ISSUE-223 into Scope for future work -- due 2008-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/779

<francois> Close ACTION-779

<trackbot> ACTION-779 Transcribe points 7 8 9 and 11 of ISSUE-223 into Scope for future work closed

<francois> ACTION-780?

<trackbot> ACTION-780 -- Jo Rabin to add text to section 4.4 referencing above resolution on mobikeOK -- due 2008-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/780

<francois> Close ACTION-780

<trackbot> ACTION-780 Add text to section 4.4 referencing above resolution on mobikeOK closed

<francois> ACTION-781

<francois> ACTION-781?

<trackbot> ACTION-781 -- Jo Rabin to enact changes sugegsted by the previous 4 resolutions -- due 2008-06-23 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/781

<francois> Close ACTION-781

<trackbot> ACTION-781 Enact changes sugegsted by the previous 4 resolutions closed

<francois> ACTION-782?

<trackbot> ACTION-782 -- Jo Rabin to draft text on which aspects of the CT guidelines should be followed by e.g. Opera Mini -- due 2008-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/782

<francois> Close ACTION-782

<trackbot> ACTION-782 Draft text on which aspects of the CT guidelines should be followed by e.g. Opera Mini closed

<jo> :-)

Francois: Everyone should review the document and send comments to mailing list.