IRC log of bpwg on 2008-09-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:56:49 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #bpwg

13:56:49 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-irc

13:56:51 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:56:51 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #bpwg

13:56:53 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be BPWG

13:56:53 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes

13:56:54 [trackbot]

Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13:56:54 [trackbot]

Date: 30 September 2008

13:57:14 [francois]

Chair: francois

13:57:36 [francois]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0059.html

13:58:02 [francois]

Regrets: Bryan, hgerlach, SeanP

14:00:07 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started

14:00:14 [Zakim]

+ +2

14:00:18 [rob]

rob has joined #bpwg

14:00:46 [Zakim]

+Francois

14:01:12 [francois]

zakim, +2 is tomhume

14:01:12 [Zakim]

+tomhume; got it

14:02:21 [jo]

jo has joined #bpwg

14:02:25 [Zakim]

-tomhume

14:02:48 [jo]

zakim, code?

14:02:48 [Zakim]

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

14:02:52 [Zakim]

+rob

14:06:31 [tomhume]

tomhume has joined #bpwg

14:12:16 [Zakim]

+tomhume

14:15:30 [Zakim]

+jo

14:15:56 [tomhume]

tomhume has joined #bpwg

14:16:29 [rob]

Scribe: rob

14:16:35 [rob]

ScribeNick: rob

14:16:48 [francois]

Topic: LC-2090, LC-2091 on headers/footers

14:17:15 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0038.html heiko's comments

14:17:22 [rob]

francois: Heiko's not here but continuing on from last week

14:17:42 [rob]

... headers/footers are out-of-scope

14:18:14 [rob]

... and this should be made explicit in Scope section

14:19:00 [rob]

jo: what was the original LC comment?

14:19:16 [francois]

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090 LC-2090

14:19:26 [francois]

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091 LC-2091

14:19:32 [tomhume]

tomhume has joined #bpwg

14:21:15 [francois]

LC-2090: "Hi, I think that CTG should mention the fact that, in case of

14:21:15 [francois]

transcoding, no extra content should be injected without the consent of

14:21:15 [francois]

the original content owner. The idea is to avoid that W3C

14:21:15 [francois]

protocols/guidelines implicitly endorse the attempt by those who

14:21:15 [francois]

manage the transcoder to monetize on the effort/investment of other

14:21:16 [francois]

people. Of course, there is also a point that injecting extra content

14:21:18 [francois]

will invariably affect usability negatively and as such should be avoided.

14:21:21 [francois]

I suggest the following addition:

14:21:22 [francois]

"4.3.6.3 Injection of external content

14:21:24 [francois]

In its effort to optimise the user experience of non-mobile optimised

14:21:28 [francois]

sites, a proxy *should not* inject extra content into the transcoded

14:21:31 [francois]

pages, where the term 'extra content' refers to text, links, banners

14:21:32 [francois]

and other multimedia content which is not available on the original

14:21:35 [francois]

untranscoded page. Addition of links aimed at implementing pagination

14:21:37 [francois]

and navigational shortcuts is admissible.

14:21:38 [francois]

Note: For clarity, it is emphasised that W3C does not endorse injection

14:21:40 [francois]

of third-party content into a transcoded page without the explicit

14:21:43 [francois]

consent of the content owner""

14:21:44 [francois]

LC-2091: Consistently with my other comment that no extra content should be added

14:21:46 [francois]

to transcoded web sites, I think that this should apply even more

14:21:48 [francois]

strongly to mobile-optimised sites. Unfortunately, I see a lot of

14:21:51 [francois]

transcoder deployments where operators and/or transcoder vendors feel

14:21:52 [francois]

entitled to add advertisement and extra navigation bars to existing

14:21:55 [francois]

mobile optimisec ontent. Because of this, I suggest the following

14:21:58 [francois]

addition as a note to "4.3.1":

14:22:01 [francois]

"Note: It should be stressed that, in case of a |Cache-Control:

14:22:02 [francois]

no-transform| directive, adding any extra content (such as banners,

14:22:05 [francois]

navigation bars and links not available in the original application) is

14:22:07 [francois]

not admissable"

14:22:47 [rob]

jo: this is really contentious, I don't think we can brush over it

14:23:26 [rob]

tom: the LC comment is clear that they want no headers/footers added

14:24:04 [rob]

francois: yes but there is also a wish to remark that a page is transcoded

14:24:22 [rob]

... especially if opt-out links have to be supplied

14:25:28 [rob]

... In sec 4.3.1 we state clearly that headers/footers are unacceptable with Cache-Control: no-transform

14:25:47 [Zakim]

-jo

14:25:51 [rob]

jo: so is this just for when transformations have been applied?

14:27:29 [Zakim]

+jo

14:28:16 [Zakim]

-jo

14:28:44 [rob]

... Do we say "out-of-scope", "never at all" or "minimised"?

14:28:55 [Zakim]

+ +1.208.995.aabb

14:29:07 [jo]

zakim, aabb is me

14:29:07 [Zakim]

+jo; got it

14:29:20 [rob]

tomhume: what does minimised really mean?

14:30:13 [rob]

francois: does it mean just minimal navigation to get around the adapted page but no branding or links away from the site?

14:30:40 [rob]

tomhume: if we can't define "minimised" then "out-of-scope" is preferable

14:31:40 [rob]

francois: yes, we shouldn't leave things open to interpretation

14:32:31 [rob]

jo: OK, an "out-of-scope" note seems the way ahead

14:33:34 [Zakim]

-jo

14:34:09 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The manner in which transformation is carried out, when it is permitted, including any additional navigational or other material that is included, aside from where explicitly stated (insecure links etc.) will be noted in an "out of scope section" in the document. And resolve no to LC-2090 and LC-2091

14:34:39 [Zakim]

+jo

14:35:46 [rob]

francois: if the "out-of-scope" section is small enough it should go in the Scope section near the Introduction

14:35:54 [francois]

+1

14:36:05 [rob]

jo: yes, play it by ear

14:36:07 [rob]

+1

14:36:11 [tomhume]

+1

14:36:36 [jo]

+1

14:36:41 [rob]

RESOLUTION: The manner in which transformation is carried out, when it is permitted, including any additional navigational or other material that is included, aside from where explicitly stated (insecure links etc.) will be noted in an "out of scope section" in the document. And resolve no to LC-2090 and LC-2091

14:36:43 [francois]

Topic: LC-2012: clarification of the introduction

14:37:04 [francois]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2012, replace the sentence deemed obscure by "Within this document content transformation refers to the manipulation of requests to, and responses from, an origin server. This manipulation is carried out by proxies in order to provide a better user experience of content that would otherwise result in an unsatisfactory experience on the device making the request."

14:37:13 [francois]

+1

14:37:26 [jo]

+1

14:37:26 [tomhume]

+1

14:37:28 [rob]

+1

14:37:38 [rob]

RESOLUTION: re. LC-2012, replace the sentence deemed obscure by "Within this document content transformation refers to the manipulation of requests to, and responses from, an origin server. This manipulation is carried out by proxies in order to provide a better user experience of content that would otherwise result in an unsatisfactory experience on the device making the request."

14:37:45 [francois]

Topic: LC-2068: on requests that contain Cache-Control: no-transform directives

14:37:59 [jo]

LC-2012 therefore resolved yes

14:38:53 [rob]

francois: I'm keeping LC tracker up-to-date in line with these resolutions

14:38:57 [francois]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2068, amend the text in section 4.1.2 with references to RFC HTTP sections. Final text: "If the request contains a Cache-Control: no-transform directive, proxies must not alter the request other than to comply with transparent HTTP behavior defined in HTTP RFC 2616 sections 14.9.5 and 13.5.2. and to add headers as described in 4.1.6 Additional HTTP Headers below."

14:39:35 [rob]

... following a resolution next week, Jo you were worried about defining "transparent"

14:40:07 [jo]

+1

14:40:11 [francois]

+1

14:40:13 [rob]

+1

14:40:26 [tomhume]

+1

14:40:36 [rob]

RESOLUTION: re. LC-2068, amend the text in section 4.1.2 with references to RFC HTTP sections. Final text: "If the request contains a Cache-Control: no-transform directive, proxies must not alter the request other than to comply with transparent HTTP behavior defined in HTTP RFC 2616 sections 14.9.5 and 13.5.2. and to add headers as described in 4.1.6 Additional HTTP Headers below."

14:40:53 [francois]

LC-2068 therefore resolved yes

14:40:54 [Zakim]

-jo

14:41:02 [francois]

Topic: LC-2009, LC-2010, LC-2011: the Link element strikes back

14:41:28 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0027.html Ping-pong on Link element

14:41:38 [Zakim]

+jo

14:42:49 [rob]

jo: this needs more discussion

14:43:14 [francois]

Topic: LC-2023: transformation across character sets

14:43:20 [rob]

... shall we put aside until TAG responds to our comments?

14:43:35 [Zakim]

+Bryan_Sullivan

14:43:44 [Bryan]

Bryan has joined #bpwg

14:44:04 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0014.html Tom's comments on CT and character sets

14:44:20 [rob]

tomhume: seems unreasonable of forbid recoding of anything except UTF-8

14:44:33 [rob]

... and there is clarity in the document already

14:44:56 [rob]

francois: could include encoding in 4.3.6.1 examples

14:46:11 [rob]

... could include a generic "don't break content" normative statement - but we already have one of those

14:46:30 [rob]

jo: can weave in a reference to Character-Encoding

14:47:01 [Zakim]

-jo

14:47:23 [rob]

... this section is the only part of the document that states "if you've decided to transform content, here's how you do it"

14:47:39 [Zakim]

+??P8

14:47:54 [jo]

zakim, ??p8 is me

14:47:54 [Zakim]

+jo; got it

14:49:16 [rob]

... ie section 4.3.6 could contain a reference to Character-Encoding and any other transformation (eg headers/footers)

14:50:10 [rob]

francois: Jo, what do you plan to say?

14:50:54 [jo]

suggested text for a 4.3.6.3: Other than as noted in this section the nature of restructuring that is carried out, what is omitted and what is inserted is a copyright issues and is out of scope of this document

14:51:21 [jo]

(plus something on pagination)

14:51:38 [Bryan]

q+\

14:51:42 [Bryan]

q+

14:51:46 [Bryan]

q-

14:51:48 [jo]

ack \

14:51:49 [rob]

francois: I'm scared this opens the door to anything!

14:52:22 [rob]

Bryan: could we say "what is inserted is out-of-scope"

14:52:43 [rob]

... it's not particularly copyright issues, it's a can of worms

14:52:47 [jo]

suggested text for a 4.3.6.3: Other than as noted in this section the nature of restructuring that is carried out, what is omitted and what is inserted may be a copyright issues and is in any case out of scope of this document

14:53:27 [rob]

francois: still concerned this is very permissive

14:54:04 [rob]

jo: are we happy leaving it at that?

14:54:06 [tomhume]

+1

14:54:11 [jo]

(could be a note in fact, rather than a separate sub-section)

14:54:25 [francois]

+1

14:54:35 [Bryan]

+1

14:55:55 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes partial" to LC-2023

14:56:04 [francois]

+1

14:56:05 [rob]

+1

14:56:13 [tomhume]

+1

14:56:19 [rob]

RESOLUTION: On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes partial" to LC-2023

14:56:49 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention the out of scope nature of the nature of restructuring under 4.3.6 somewhere

14:57:28 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention the out of scope nature of the details of restructuring under 4.3.6 somewhere (cf insertion of headers, footers etc.)

14:57:45 [rob]

+1

14:57:51 [francois]

+1

14:57:53 [tomhume]

+1

14:58:06 [rob]

RESOLUTION: Mention the out of scope nature of the details of restructuring under 4.3.6 somewhere (cf insertion of headers, footers etc.)

14:58:11 [francois]

Topic: LC-2065: opting-out of CT

14:58:36 [Zakim]

-tomhume

14:58:42 [rob]

francois: Jo replied to Denis

14:58:50 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0155.html Bryan's comments on LC-2065

14:59:33 [rob]

Bryan: intention was to keep it as simple as possible

15:00:01 [rob]

... 1) original represantation must always be available

15:00:13 [matt_]

matt_ has joined #bpwg

15:00:21 [rob]

... 2) need ability to switch between the representations

15:00:49 [rob]

... 3) it is useful to remember the user's preference but not essential

15:01:25 [rob]

... So may be useful to include a section on user control of their preferences

15:01:56 [rob]

francois: 1 and 2 are covered

15:02:54 [rob]

... but what we say about 2 could be a bit too generic

15:03:21 [rob]

jo: Appendix E has some user preferences text

15:03:39 [rob]

francois: should this be upgraded to a normative statement?

15:04:22 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Move content from Appendix E to 4.3.6 somewhere and reword appropriately (and yes, partial to LC-2065)

15:04:37 [rob]

+1

15:05:13 [rob]

jo: is 2 practical?

15:05:35 [rob]

Bryan: yes, we've deployed systems with that capability

15:06:16 [rob]

jo: but if the content-provider has more than one representation that's more complicated

15:06:56 [rob]

Bryan: agreed, I meant switch just between CT-proxy transformation and untransformed

15:08:10 [rob]

... the spirit of the comment is to give the user control over what's happening

15:09:11 [rob]

jo: so we anticipate there may be preferences persisted but we don't want to mandate it

15:09:28 [rob]

Bryan: I'm happy with that

15:09:35 [francois]

+1

15:10:00 [rob]

RESOLUTION: Move content from Appendix E to 4.3.6 somewhere and reword appropriately (and yes, partial to LC-2065)

15:10:35 [rob]

jo: that's 6 comments today!!

15:10:51 [rob]

francois: it takes time that's for sure

15:11:29 [Zakim]

-jo

15:11:31 [Zakim]

-Bryan_Sullivan

15:11:31 [Zakim]

-Francois

15:11:34 [Zakim]

-rob

15:11:35 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended

15:11:38 [Zakim]

Attendees were Francois, tomhume, rob, jo, +1.208.995.aabb, Bryan_Sullivan

15:11:40 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:11:40 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:14:40 [rob]

rob has left #bpwg

16:04:58 [francois]

RRSAgent, bye

16:04:58 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items