13:57:20 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:57:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-irc 13:57:49 rrsagent, pointer? 13:57:49 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-irc#T13-57-49 13:58:03 rrsagent, make minutes 13:58:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-minutes.html jo 13:58:17 rrsagent, make logs public 13:59:41 zakim, byte 13:59:41 I don't understand 'byte', jo 13:59:47 zakim, bye 13:59:47 leaving. As of this point the attendees were jo, Francois, +0752568aaaa, tomhume 13:59:47 Zakim has left #bpwg 13:59:55 rrsagent, byte 13:59:55 I'm logging. I don't understand 'byte', jo. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:00:06 tarckbot, start telcon 14:00:10 rrsagent, bye 14:00:10 I see no action items 14:00:15 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 14:00:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-irc 14:00:17 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:17 Zakim has joined #bpwg 14:00:19 Zakim, this will be BPWG 14:00:19 BPWG matches both Team_(bpwg)13:46Z and MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM 14:00:20 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 14:00:20 Date: 09 September 2008 14:00:24 Chair: francois 14:00:30 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0007.html 14:00:36 zakim, code? 14:00:36 sorry, francois, I don't know what conference this is 14:00:42 Pontus has joined #bpwg 14:00:48 zakim, this will be MWI_BPWG 14:00:51 ok, francois, I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM already started 14:00:56 zakim, code? 14:00:56 the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), francois 14:01:00 rob has joined #bpwg 14:01:41 +Francois 14:01:59 +tomhume 14:02:23 zakim, who is on the call? 14:02:52 On the phone I see hgerlach, Francois, tomhume 14:03:22 +rob_finean 14:03:55 zakim, who is here? 14:03:58 +Pontus 14:04:31 + +03531522aaaa 14:04:50 zakim, aaaa is dotMobi 14:04:55 On the phone I see hgerlach, Francois, tomhume, rob_finean, Pontus, +03531522aaaa 14:04:59 zakim, dotMobi holds jo 14:05:42 zakim, wake up 14:05:56 +dotMobi; got it 14:06:05 On IRC I see rob, Pontus, Zakim, RRSAgent, hgerlach, tomhume, jo, francois, trackbot, matt, dom 14:06:11 +jo; got it 14:06:29 scribe: Jo 14:06:55 Topic: Introductions 14:06:56 I don't understand 'wake up', jo 14:08:11 francois: introduces Tom as an Invited Expert with specific mobile development expertise to enhance representation from that side 14:08:27 ... and to help reolve the last call comments 14:08:33 ... so round the table 14:08:57 ... I am the staff contact for BP and lead the CTTF "I am here to help" 14:09:39 heiko: I work for Vodafone and own content adaptation in VOdafone 14:09:58 pontus: from Ericsson have been working on the CT product 14:10:09 rob: from Openwave responsible for OpenWeb 14:10:21 SeanP has joined #bpwg 14:10:52 jo: from dotMObi, co-chair of BP and editor of CT doc 14:11:34 tom: I am MD of Future Platforms and increasingly involved in mobile Web hence come across transformation 14:12:05 s/MObi/Mobi/ 14:12:28 Topic: Future of the Task Force 14:13:14 rancois: just wanted to review this, before August we thought we might be able to stop the TF and move the work back to the WG but with the number of comments think it is appropriate to continue the TF 14:13:14 me 14:13:22 +1 to continuing the TF 14:13:24 +SeanP 14:13:52 heiko: need to get comments done asap should not keep people waiting 14:14:19 francois: don't think we can do it in 2 weeks but yes we seem to be agreed 14:14:24 +1 14:14:31 q+ 14:14:41 Topic: Sharing the workload 14:15:19 francois: I split the comments up between the TF members and wanted people to be responsible so we can just get on it with it, the allocation is random 14:15:23 ack jo 14:15:38 ack me 14:15:51 Topic: Introductions (bis) 14:16:04 francois: introduces Tom to SeanP who just joined 14:16:14 seanp: work for novarra 14:16:24 tom: (per the above) 14:16:43 Topic: Sharing the workload (bis) 14:17:21 francois: was just trying to find a way to go faster rather than to impose anything on anyone 14:18:05 zakim, mute SeanP 14:18:05 SeanP should now be muted 14:18:09 ... I left 2 unallocated to deal with today 14:18:16 zakim, unmute SeanP 14:18:16 SeanP should no longer be muted 14:18:18 zakim, who is noisy? 14:18:28 jo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dotMobi (30%), tomhume (61%), Francois (36%) 14:18:38 zakim, mute tomhume 14:18:38 tomhume should now be muted 14:19:16 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0008.html Division of the Last Call comments 14:19:19 ... any objections to my allocation of coments? 14:20:09 ... person responsible to read and summarise the comment and the position we took before, linking where appropriate, and propose changes tot he spec or provide a rationale for saying no, etc. 14:20:25 ... done on the mailing list and hence go faster on the call? 14:20:37 ... any views? 14:20:41 q+ 14:20:45 +1 to the allocation as it stands 14:21:14 heiko: I think I am the only one who can't do anything with the Vary header so would prefer not to do that 14:22:13 jo: I'll take 2081 and 2088 14:22:17 q+ 14:22:24 ack hgerlach 14:22:25 ack hg 14:23:33 +1 14:24:46 Topic: Section 4.15 14:24:53 s/15/1.5/ 14:25:37 http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xslt?inclusion=1&xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2003%2F12%2Fannotea-proxy&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.w3.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Ftidy-if%3FdocAddr%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.w3.org%252FTR%252F2008%252FWD-ct-guidelines-20080801%252F&annoteaServer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2006%2F02%2Flc-comments-tracker%2F37584%2FWD-ct-guidelines-20080801%2Fannotations#sec-altering-header-values 14:26:06 http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/search/?responseFilter=incl§ion=sec-altering-header-values& 14:27:10 q+ 14:27:21 ack jo 14:28:44 q+ 14:28:50 jo: I will take on making proposed responses but first think that we need to agree a policy 14:29:13 ... for example I would not be averse to a document that said don't change any headers 14:29:33 ... but I think the members of the TF need to express views 14:29:48 ack SeanP 14:30:29 seanp: I like it as it is, think it is practical as it is written to meet the reality of how it is being done now as well as being consistent with the way the group sees content developing 14:30:47 rob: the comments seem mainly about POSTs - is that right? 14:31:00 francois: hmmm, not really 14:31:23 rob: oops, I was reading the wrong section 14:31:46 q+ 14:32:22 ack jo 14:32:41 rob: we came up with this text because we thought that altering the user agent is a good way of getting content to a device that oherwise would not be able to get it 14:33:37 q+ 14:33:52 jo: I don't preempt discussion on this, but the rationale is twofold: 1. otherwise content would be blocked. I'm personally unaware of this happening. To be fair, we should have more statistics. 14:34:16 ... 2. because some people want the reformatted view. 14:34:46 ... Not much to say about that apart from the fact that it may occur. 14:36:18 jo: I think we need to justify with some figure how frequently servers respond with a 406 or equivalent that blocks the user getting a response, which is the main justification for the. The other justification, which is tha the user has requested a restructured desktop experience seems to me at least conceivable, but to what extent to we need to accommodate that possibility? 14:36:38 ack hgerlach 14:37:33 heiko: In general I agree with Jo - but should we differentiate between different heades - e.g. the User agent might be special, other headers should probably be treated differently 14:38:25 ... I think that the 406 is something different which is why I mentioned earlier that we should have a white list 14:38:49 francois: what other headers do you think are problematical, the section benefits from being generic 14:38:52 q+ 14:38:56 ack jo 14:40:39 jo: I do think we should distinguish between rejection with 406 because of incomptible accepts vs incompatible User Agents 14:41:25 q+ 14:41:31 francois: well, aaron had an action a while back about this, maybe we should re-awaken his action 14:42:12 jo: sure, google would be well placed to do this if they were able, if they aren't then we will have to do it elsewhere in the group 14:43:21 ack me 14:43:41 francois: so you're suggesting we need to test if we can be stricter about the user agent not being changed - and continue to be strict about the accept-* ? 14:43:53 [discussion about who can supply info] 14:44:07 seanp: I can see if we have anything on that 14:44:16 q+ 14:44:21 ack jo 14:44:40 francois: I'll take an action to get back to aaron 14:44:49 jo: I can look and see if we have anyting too 14:45:11 action: daoust to get back to aaron from google to see if he can get some stats for us 14:45:11 Created ACTION-842 - Get back to aaron from google to see if he can get some stats for us [on François Daoust - due 2008-09-16]. 14:46:02 action: jo to see if he can come up with wording on this section that might accommodate everyone 14:46:02 Created ACTION-843 - See if he can come up with wording on this section that might accommodate everyone [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-16]. 14:46:40 action-843+ (the section in question being 4.1.5) 14:47:06 topic: 4.3.6.2 HTTPS link rewriting 14:47:21 http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xslt?inclusion=1&xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2003%2F12%2Fannotea-proxy&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.w3.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Ftidy-if%3FdocAddr%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.w3.org%252FTR%252F2008%252FWD-ct-guidelines-20080801%252F&annoteaServer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2006%2F02%2Flc-comments-tracker%2F37584%2FWD-ct-guidelines-20080801%2Fannotations4.6.3 14:47:37 http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/search/?responseFilter=incl§ion=sec-https-link-rewriting& 14:48:26 francois: we got lots of comments and the comments are about saying that HTTPS links should not be re-written in any circumstances as it is a man in the middle attack 14:49:05 ... either we say this is not allowed or we stick to the text we have amended a bit 14:49:25 ... positions and volunteers to address these coments? 14:49:28 q+ 14:49:32 ack SeanP 14:50:31 sean: we have a pretty good statement in the document - if you outlaw this you can't get to your mail etc. - a lot of the comments refer to banks but there are a lot of other sites that you can't go to which have less security requirements 14:50:53 francois: I don't have a clear position, I understand both the need and the danger 14:50:57 maybe just add "towards "server and user" at the end 14:51:17 ... if anything I'd say it just should not be allowed 14:51:31 ... but agree that some applications don't have to be that secure 14:51:41 ... any more thoughts? 14:51:49 q+ 14:51:51 ... anyone want to take this on? 14:51:55 ack tomhume 14:52:36 tom: one of the difficulties here is that it pushes an understanding of the mechanisms on to the user who probably doesn't understand what is going on 14:52:57 yes, but this is the same with a native browser e.g. firefox 14:52:59 ... not even clear on the web now, with regular desktop browsers 14:53:18 francois: agree, what do you think would help ref the user 14:54:02 tom: yes, good idea, but can't think of an easy way to do this avoiding malicious attacks in the context of a mobile device 14:54:24 q+ to echo Sean's comment; many websites use HTTPS login even though the content isn't sensitive. As Tom says, the end-user somehow makes a decision about what is secure enough to read email vs what is secure enough for online banking 14:54:32 francois: how about noting that and thinking about it, can I assign you the comments 14:55:23 ... a fresh look at the section by someone who did not participate in the previous discussions 14:55:49 q? 14:56:04 re https, the web security context guidelines might have some useful definitions and ideas to solve that problem: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wsc-ui-20080724/ 14:56:06 ack rob 14:56:06 rob, you wanted to echo Sean's comment; many websites use HTTPS login even though the content isn't sensitive. As Tom says, the end-user somehow makes a decision about what is 14:56:10 ... secure enough to read email vs what is secure enough for online banking 14:56:50 rob: there is a difference between logging in to hotmail, where everything subsequent to login is done in the plain anyway 14:57:48 ... there is an education of the end-users to do, to allow them to use some kind of login that uses https for that kind of thing, but not use it for banking, I don't think we should ban this completely 14:58:11 francois: but shouldn't we put the load on the CP in that if they don't need https they shouldn't use it 14:58:24 q+ 14:58:41 ack SeanP 14:58:42 ... but there is more than that - https is used to protect content in both cases 14:59:49 sean: I agree with most of what Rob says - https is secure from the user to the operator then from operator to Content Provider - so if you trust your operator you are probably OK if not you should not be using HTTPs through a proxy 15:00:47 jo: points out that Dom pasted the link: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wsc-ui-20080724/ 15:01:06 francois: we should take a look at this 15:01:53 francois: aob 15:02:14 francois: we seem to have assigned all the comments so go ahead and discuss on the mailing list 15:02:27 -Pontus 15:02:32 s/francois: aob/Topic: AOB 15:02:36 great, bye!;-) 15:02:45 -hgerlach 15:02:53 -Francois 15:02:56 -SeanP 15:02:58 zakim, drop me 15:03:00 sorry, jo, I do not see a party named 'jo' 15:03:02 -rob_finean 15:03:02 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:03:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-minutes.html francois 15:03:04 -tomhume 15:03:16 -dotMobi 15:03:18 MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended 15:03:20 Attendees were hgerlach, Francois, tomhume, rob_finean, Pontus, +03531522aaaa, jo, SeanP 15:04:05 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:04:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-minutes.html francois 15:08:18 couple of typos and a missing speaker 15:08:31 s/couple of typos and a missing speaker// 15:08:40 RRSagent, bye 15:08:40 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-actions.rdf : 15:08:40 ACTION: daoust to get back to aaron from google to see if he can get some stats for us [1] 15:08:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-irc#T14-45-11 15:08:40 ACTION: jo to see if he can come up with wording on this section that might accommodate everyone [2] 15:08:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-bpwg-irc#T14-46-02