IRC log of bpwg on 2008-09-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:54:44 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #bpwg

13:54:44 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-bpwg-irc

13:54:46 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:54:46 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #bpwg

13:54:48 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be BPWG

13:54:48 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes

13:54:49 [trackbot]

Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13:54:49 [trackbot]

Date: 16 September 2008

13:54:54 [francois]

Chair: francois

13:55:02 [francois]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0025.html

13:55:22 [francois]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0025.html

13:55:29 [francois]

Regrets: Tom, rob

13:57:18 [jo]

jo has joined #bpwg

13:57:39 [jo]

zakim, code?

13:57:39 [Zakim]

the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo

13:58:53 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started

13:59:02 [Zakim]

+Francois

13:59:42 [Zakim]

+ +049211aaaa - is perhaps heiko

14:00:17 [hgerlach]

hgerlach has joined #bpwg

14:00:25 [hgerlach]

hi

14:00:42 [Zakim]

-heiko

14:01:18 [Zakim]

+ +049211aabb - is perhaps heiko

14:01:34 [hgerlach]

zakim, *aabb is heiko

14:01:34 [Zakim]

sorry, hgerlach, I do not recognize a party named '*aabb'

14:01:55 [hgerlach]

zakim, + +49211aabb is heiko

14:02:04 [Zakim]

I don't understand '+ +49211aabb is heiko', hgerlach

14:04:13 [SeanP]

SeanP has joined #bpwg

14:04:47 [hgerlach]

Hi

14:04:49 [Zakim]

+ +0789972aacc

14:05:24 [Zakim]

+ +0208995aadd

14:05:33 [jo]

zakim, aadd is me

14:05:33 [Zakim]

+jo; got it

14:05:38 [francois]

zakim, aacc is andrews

14:05:38 [Zakim]

+andrews; got it

14:05:51 [jo]

zakim, aabb is heiko

14:05:51 [Zakim]

sorry, jo, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'

14:05:53 [Zakim]

+SeanP

14:05:57 [francois]

zakim, who makes noise?

14:05:58 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, francois.

14:06:05 [francois]

zakim, who is making noise?

14:06:16 [Zakim]

francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 5 (44%), andrews (53%)

14:06:29 [Bryan]

Bryan has joined #BPWG

14:06:37 [jo]

zakim, who is here?

14:06:37 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Francois, heiko, andrews, jo, SeanP

14:06:38 [Zakim]

On IRC I see Bryan, SeanP, hgerlach, jo, Zakim, RRSAgent, andrews, francois, trackbot, matt, dom

14:07:06 [Zakim]

+Bryan_Sullivan

14:08:10 [SeanP]

scribe: SeanP

14:08:16 [SeanP]

Scribenick:SeanP

14:08:44 [SeanP]

Francois: Short point: The CT task force is not the voice of the working group.

14:09:06 [SeanP]

...we need to go back to the WG to get approval for answers to comments.

14:09:33 [SeanP]

Topic: Guidelines vs. Protocol

14:10:29 [SeanP]

Francois: Jo, any comments on the responses from Mark and Mark?

14:10:44 [SeanP]

Jo: Between a rock and a hard place. Can kind of see their point.

14:11:27 [SeanP]

Francois: No matter what we say in the guidelines can be seen as a refinment of HTTP.

14:11:54 [SeanP]

Jo: Not sure what we are supposed to do here. If we say something that is more strict, are we profiling HTTP?

14:12:03 [hgerlach]

q+

14:12:07 [Bryan]

q+

14:12:25 [SeanP]

...when we say something that HTTP doesn't say, that is a kind of profiling.

14:12:35 [SeanP]

Francois: Should we get back to them?

14:12:49 [SeanP]

Jo: Baker got back to me; Nottingham didn't.

14:13:05 [francois]

ack hgerlach

14:13:09 [SeanP]

Jo: Some of this may become a non-issue depending on how things go in the future.

14:13:45 [SeanP]

Heiko: What we are doing is not directly related to HTTP. HTTP is used as a basis. Could show the HTTP details as an example.

14:14:00 [andrewsw]

andrewsw has joined #bpwg

14:14:17 [francois]

ack Bryan

14:14:22 [SeanP]

Francois: In 4.6.2 we have a strong statement; have a few other places where we do this.

14:15:22 [SeanP]

Bryan: We are really talking about a service on top of HTTP here.

14:16:00 [SeanP]

...We are talking about server behavior on top of HTTP parameters.

14:16:41 [SeanP]

...We are focusing on one service: browsing.

14:17:30 [SeanP]

Francois: I agree. On possibility mentioned by Jo is remove the normative statements on the server side and write the section as more generic advice on how to deal with CT proxies.

14:17:57 [SeanP]

...CP want to be able to follow the guidelines without doing anything.

14:18:37 [SeanP]

...Hopefully later changes to the document will address these problems.

14:18:48 [andrews]

andrews has joined #bpwg

14:19:12 [SeanP]

Jo: Seems likely. Maybe we should have a discussion on downgrading the conformance section.

14:20:04 [SeanP]

...I think we are writing a specification about how CT proxies should behave when using HTTP.

14:21:27 [jo]

q?

14:22:18 [SeanP]

Francois: We have two classes of product: content deployment and proxy deployment.

14:23:02 [SeanP]

...Readers see the conformance statement as something you have to do; not something you do if you want to conform.

14:23:47 [SeanP]

...I think it is fine if we remove the deployment class of products from conformance.

14:24:44 [SeanP]

Jo: It is the job of all CT proxies to work with CP that conform and those that do not conform. Some restructuring and new text to do this would be a good idea.

14:26:51 [francois]

[to make things clear, we're talking about removing the "Content Deployment" class of product, and moving section 4.2 to some other place as an informative section for content providers]

14:26:51 [SeanP]

Jo: Idea is downgrading content deployment conformance section; change it to helpful hints or something like that.

14:27:42 [SeanP]

Andrew: The main problem is that we should be stipulating how servers or CT proxies should be have?

14:28:45 [SeanP]

Jo: Not exactly. CT providers are misreading the spec to say that everyone needs to do this. This point has been misunderstood by some many people that there is no doubt that the document is not clear.

14:28:59 [SeanP]

...The main focus of the document is CT proxies.

14:29:09 [SeanP]

Andrew: They are just guidelines.

14:29:27 [SeanP]

Jo: We do want something that CT proxies can claim conformance to.

14:29:59 [SeanP]

...2 levels of manditoryness(?). Can claim conformance to guidelines.

14:30:33 [SeanP]

Andrew: There is no way to check conformance. It is up to individual vendors to claim conformance.

14:31:22 [SeanP]

Jo: The question that the deployer would ask the vendor is: Can I deploy this CT proxy in a conformant manner?

14:31:39 [SeanP]

...It is up to the deployer to deploy it in a conformant manner.

14:31:42 [francois]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove "Content Deployment" class of product and move section 4.2 Server Response to Proxy to an informative section. No more normative guidelines on Content Providers.

14:31:53 [SeanP]

Andrew: I'm happy with this direction.

14:31:59 [jo]

+1

14:32:04 [andrews]

andrews has joined #bpwg

14:32:21 [francois]

+1

14:32:37 [SeanP]

Francois: We chartered the CT guidelines to be normative and now we are removing normative statements.

14:33:06 [francois]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove "Content Deployment" class of product and move section 4.2 Server Response to Proxy to an informative section. No more normative guidelines on Content Providers.

14:33:27 [andrews]

+1

14:33:32 [hgerlach]

+-0

14:34:13 [SeanP]

RESOLUTION: remove "Content Deployment" class of product and move section 4.2 Server Response to Proxy to an informative section. No more normative guidelines on Content Providers.

14:34:31 [jo]

+cauliflower

14:34:54 [SeanP]

Francois: This resolves LC-2007.

14:35:21 [SeanP]

Topic: LC-2018: on the title

14:35:50 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0009.html Sean's proposals

14:36:08 [SeanP]

Jo: Shouldn't spend too much time on this, although the title is important.

14:36:43 [SeanP]

Francois: We don't want to put "Mobile" in the title.

14:36:55 [SeanP]

...We should select one of the titles.

14:37:21 [andrews]

andrews has joined #bpwg

14:37:26 [SeanP]

...Ones that received the most support is Content Transformation: Guidelines or the long one.

14:37:31 [francois]

[Jo's proposal: Content Transformation Proxy Interoperability Guidelines]

14:37:38 [SeanP]

Jo: I made another suggestion.

14:38:09 [SeanP]

...I thought it should say something about Interoperability

14:38:57 [hgerlach]

q+

14:39:26 [SeanP]

Heiko: Do we need to highlight that we are transcoding HTML comment?

14:39:36 [francois]

ack hgerlach

14:39:37 [SeanP]

...Could also do other types of transformation.

14:39:53 [SeanP]

Jo: It does include other types of transformation.

14:40:08 [Bryan]

q+

14:40:15 [SeanP]

Heiko: Other types of transformation are different from what we discussed earlier.

14:40:15 [francois]

ack Bryan

14:40:32 [SeanP]

Francois: I don't think we restricted the format.

14:41:02 [SeanP]

Bryan: I think we should avoid talking about things that we didn't have in mind when we started this.

14:41:17 [SeanP]

...We should really focus on the web browsing aspect.

14:41:29 [SeanP]

Heiko: That is what I was talking about.

14:41:57 [SeanP]

...maybe have something in the title about HTML.

14:42:07 [SeanP]

Jo: I don't think we are restricted to that.

14:42:20 [SeanP]

Heiko: How about adding "browsing" to the title?

14:42:37 [SeanP]

Francois: We are going to end up with a really long title if we keep adding things.

14:43:02 [SeanP]

...Maybe we should discuss on the mailing list since it could take a lot of time.

14:43:23 [francois]

"Content Transformation Proxy Interoperability Guidelines"

14:43:28 [francois]

"Web Browsing Content Transformation Proxy Interoperability Guidelines"

14:44:24 [SeanP]

Heiko: Is this interoperability of CT proxies with each other?

14:44:43 [SeanP]

Jo: I guess there is a hint of that in this title.

14:45:30 [SeanP]

Francois: Let's think about this this week and I'll make some proposals in the "title" thread.

14:45:46 [SeanP]

Topic: LC-2067: conformance to SHOULD

14:46:18 [SeanP]

Francois: About being clear about what conformance to normative statements means.

14:47:30 [SeanP]

...Our conformance statement is not clear in whether a conforming implementation must follow the just the MUSTs or the MUSTs and the SHOULDs

14:48:17 [SeanP]

...The SHOULDs are there to recognize that there are some situations where it would be hard to follow all of the guidelines.

14:48:47 [SeanP]

...There should be a statement from the deployer why a SHOULD is not followed.

14:49:17 [SeanP]

...There was some concern on the mailing list that a deployment could get around the guidelines by not following any of the SHOULDs

14:49:24 [hgerlach]

q+

14:49:35 [francois]

ack hgerlach

14:49:36 [hgerlach]

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

14:49:42 [SeanP]

...We could do some sort of conformance statement that deployers could fill out and sign.

14:49:53 [Bryan]

+1

14:50:45 [SeanP]

Francois: We need to clarify that we expect a conforming proxy to follow the SHOULDs.

14:51:26 [SeanP]

...We want to emphasize that it is a good idea to follow the SHOULDs by creating a conformance statement.

14:51:51 [SeanP]

Bryan: It is good idea to have a statement of compliance for normative statements.

14:52:31 [SeanP]

Francois: We want it to be clear that we want CT proxies to follow all of the guidelines.

14:53:07 [SeanP]

Jo: I agree with this. I think that Bryan's idea of using a tabular format for the conformance statement is also a good idea.

14:53:12 [francois]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2067, state that conformance applies to SHOULD statements as well. A justification is required for not following SHOULD statements. Prepare an Implementation Conformance Statement to be filled out by Transformation Deployments willing to claim conformance to the spec.

14:53:35 [SeanP]

...I also think that we want to make it understood that the SHOULDs be followed.

14:54:12 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2067, state that conformance applies to SHOULD statements as well. A justification is required for each circumstance in which a SHOULD statement is not followed. Prepare an Implementation Conformance Statement to be filled out by Transformation Deployments willing to claim conformance to the spec.

14:54:26 [francois]

+1

14:54:30 [hgerlach]

+1

14:54:35 [andrews]

+1

14:54:35 [jo]

+1

14:54:37 [Bryan]

+1

14:54:49 [SeanP]

RESOLUTION: re. LC-2067, state that conformance applies to SHOULD statements as well. A justification is required for each circumstance in which a SHOULD statement is not followed. Prepare an Implementation Conformance Statement to be filled out by Transformation Deployments willing to claim conformance to the spec.

14:55:36 [francois]

ACTION: daoust to prepare an Implementation Conformance Statement

14:55:36 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-846 - Prepare an Implementation Conformance Statement [on François Daoust - due 2008-09-23].

14:55:47 [SeanP]

Francois: I will work on a conformance statement. It would be nice if we could extract this from the guidelines automatically.

14:56:00 [SeanP]

LC-2050: restructuring, recoding and optimizing

14:56:10 [SeanP]

Topic: LC-2050: restructuring, recoding and optimizing

14:56:14 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0010.html Sean's comments

14:59:04 [SeanP]

Francois: As I understand it, we don't use the terms that much.

14:59:16 [andrews]

+q

14:59:21 [francois]

ack andrews

14:59:30 [SeanP]

Sean: Not sure what to do about the terms even though we don't use them that much.

15:00:02 [SeanP]

Francois: Maybe we should wait a while and see what happens with the rest of the document.

15:00:21 [SeanP]

Andrew: I think we should leave this as it is.

15:01:06 [SeanP]

Jo: I think the definitions are useful. However, I don't think we should have "dangling" definitions.

15:01:25 [SeanP]

Bryan: If you create definitions, you should use them.

15:01:34 [hgerlach]

q+

15:02:09 [SeanP]

Jo: I am narrowly in favor of removing the definitions.

15:02:34 [francois]

ack hgerlach

15:02:40 [SeanP]

Andrew: How about mentioning that we are not going to use recoding and optimization in the document?

15:02:52 [SeanP]

Jo: That seems like a reasonable idea?

15:03:02 [SeanP]

s/idea?/idea

15:03:17 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Re LC-2050 move definitions to scope to clarify that we are talking only about restructuring

15:03:52 [francois]

+1

15:03:52 [hgerlach]

+1

15:03:53 [andrews]

+1

15:03:53 [Bryan]

+1

15:03:56 [SeanP]

+1

15:04:07 [SeanP]

RESOLUTION: Re LC-2050 move definitions to scope to clarify that we are talking only about restructuring

15:04:16 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: rec LC-2050 we don't intend to define these concepts formally

15:04:31 [SeanP]

+1

15:04:57 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2050 we don't intend to define these concepts any more formally than we do now

15:05:02 [andrews]

+1

15:05:05 [francois]

+1

15:05:07 [SeanP]

+1

15:05:15 [SeanP]

RESOLUTION: re LC-2050 we don't intend to define these concepts any more formally than we do now

15:06:14 [Zakim]

-heiko

15:06:16 [Zakim]

-Bryan_Sullivan

15:06:18 [Zakim]

-SeanP

15:06:24 [Zakim]

-andrews

15:06:28 [Zakim]

-Francois

15:06:45 [Zakim]

-jo

15:06:51 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended

15:06:53 [Zakim]

Attendees were Francois, +049211aaaa, +049211aabb, +0789972aacc, +0208995aadd, jo, andrews, SeanP, Bryan_Sullivan

15:07:13 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:07:13 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-bpwg-minutes.html francois

17:05:36 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #bpwg