See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 September 2008
<hgerlach> +1
<jo> scribe: rob
<jo> LC Comment Tracker
Jo: Starting at LC-2043
jo: Mark Nottingham makes a
comment similar to LC-2043
... saying decide if this is Guidelines or Protocol - can't be
both
SeanP: agrees with Jo's
sentiments that most of the document is guidelines
... we're echoing common practise rather than specifying a
protocol
Bryan: but mentioning common practise is kind of recommending it as a protocol
jo: I could take this back to the comments list ...
<jo> ACTION: Jo to get back on LC-2043 and simialr pointing out what we are trying to achieve and asking for clarification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-828 - Get back on LC-2043 and simialr pointing out what we are trying to achieve and asking for clarification [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-09].
jo: but I think guidelines are as far as we want to go with this document - definitely not a protocol definition
hgerlach: we call the document guidelines but as LC-2025 says, there is little guidance for Eduardo
<jo> ACTION: HGerlach to detail his thoughts arising from discussion of LC-2025 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-829 - Detail his thoughts arising from discussion of LC-2025 [on Heiko Gerlach - due 2008-09-09].
jo: point of the document is not to prevent egregious behaviour but to provide a framework so the parties can understand and control what happens
<hgerlach> will we agree the responses before sending it out?
Bryan: this is a summary comment, there are more comments later that define specifics
SeanP: would it be easier to hit the specific comments 1st?
jo: maybe, but good to see them
in tracker's order in overview
... skipping LC-2075
<jo> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
<jo> LC-2065
Jo: I did respond to Dennis on this informally
Bryan: I'd like to review Jo's response and follow up
<jo> ACTION: Bryan to review correspondence with Dennis cf LC-2065 and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a proposed response to Dennis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-830 - Review correspondence with Dennis cf LC-2065 and to draft a) proposed changes to the document and b) a proposed response to Dennis [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-09-09].
Bryan: I'll follow up on the public list
<jo> LC-2018
jo: This is about the document's title
SeanP: there is a good point here, but I still don't know what to change the title to!
Bryan: we'd call this "Content
Adaptation" rather than "Content Transformation"
... but capturing the fact that you are adapting for a limited
browser might be useful in the title
jo: but "Content Adaptation" is commonly used as an origin-server technology already
<jo> Content Transformation by Proxies?
<SeanP> HTTP proxies?
hgerlach: we don't change the
content, we change the layout
... not convinced we need to change the title
<hgerlach> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the title of the document to: Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies: Guidelines
<hgerlach> how about transducer instead???
<SeanP> How about "Guidelines for Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies?
jo: given importance of "no-transform", transformation must be the right word
Bryan: is the word Guidelines essential?
jo: maybe not
<hgerlach> How about orientation guide?
SeanP: move Guidelines to a subtitle like "Guidelines for content providers, network operators and ..."
<jo> ACTION: SeanP to continue discussion of the title on the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SeanP
<jo> ACTION: Patterson to continue discussion of the title on the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-831 - Continue discussion of the title on the list [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-09-09].
<SeanP> Another suggestion: Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies: Guidelines for CT Operators and Content Providers
<jo> (assigned to Jo)
jo: I'll respond to this
jo: we do distinguish between
these but don't make much use of the definitions
... and may be difficult to define it formally
SeanP: possibility we could remove them? It's tricky to define formally
jo: would anybody like to see what the impact of removing the definitions is?
SeanP: yes, I'll do that
<jo> ACTION: Patterson to look at what the impact on the document would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-832 - Look at what the impact on the document would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050 [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-09-09].
Bryan: in considering language around "user-control" I'll wait until Jo responds to LC-2003 before elaborating on this
<jo> ACTION: Jo to propose text against LC-2003 referring to the TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal operation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-833 - Propose text against LC-2003 referring to the TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal operation [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-09].
<hgerlach> what is left????
jo: does anyone have particular
views?
... what's left are OPTIONS and random extensions like WebDAV
methods
<SeanP> OPTIONS, CONNECT, TRACE, DELETE
rob: we don't do anything to other methods
<jo> ACTION: Rob to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Rob
<jo> ACTION: Finean to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-834 - Draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods [on Robert Finean - due 2008-09-09].
jo: I'll chat with Francois when he's back about dividing the comments up - because we've made good progress today but finishing will take a long time at this rate
<hgerlach> OK, bye
<jo> rssagent, draft minutes
<jo> rssagent, help
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Topin/Topic/ Succeeded: s/Topi:c/Topic:/ Succeeded: s/Mark is/Mark Nottingham is/ Succeeded: s/Mark Nottingham is/Mark Nottingham also/ Succeeded: s/some formal comments including/a comment similar to/ Succeeded: s/I could take on submitting this to other groups to become a protocol?/I could take this back to the comments list .../ Succeeded: s/explain transcoding/prevent egregious behaviour/ Succeeded: s/pong/ping/ Succeeded: s/also editor of HTTP and // Found Scribe: rob Inferring ScribeNick: rob Default Present: jo, Pontus, HGerlach, rob_finean, Bryan_Sullivan, SeanP Present: Bryan_Sullivan HGerlach Pontus SeanP jo rob_finean Regrets: Francois Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0000.html Found Date: 02 Sep 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-bpwg-minutes.html People with action items: bryan finean hgerlach jo patterson rob seanp[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]