13:56:49 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:56:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-irc 13:56:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:56:51 Zakim has joined #bpwg 13:56:53 Zakim, this will be BPWG 13:56:53 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 13:56:54 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:56:54 Date: 30 September 2008 13:57:14 Chair: francois 13:57:36 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0059.html 13:58:02 Regrets: Bryan, hgerlach, SeanP 14:00:07 MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started 14:00:14 + +2 14:00:18 rob has joined #bpwg 14:00:46 +Francois 14:01:12 zakim, +2 is tomhume 14:01:12 +tomhume; got it 14:02:21 jo has joined #bpwg 14:02:25 -tomhume 14:02:48 zakim, code? 14:02:48 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 +rob 14:06:31 tomhume has joined #bpwg 14:12:16 +tomhume 14:15:30 +jo 14:15:56 tomhume has joined #bpwg 14:16:29 Scribe: rob 14:16:35 ScribeNick: rob 14:16:48 Topic: LC-2090, LC-2091 on headers/footers 14:17:15 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0038.html heiko's comments 14:17:22 francois: Heiko's not here but continuing on from last week 14:17:42 ... headers/footers are out-of-scope 14:18:14 ... and this should be made explicit in Scope section 14:19:00 jo: what was the original LC comment? 14:19:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090 LC-2090 14:19:26 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091 LC-2091 14:19:32 tomhume has joined #bpwg 14:21:15 LC-2090: "Hi, I think that CTG should mention the fact that, in case of 14:21:15 transcoding, no extra content should be injected without the consent of 14:21:15 the original content owner. The idea is to avoid that W3C 14:21:15 protocols/guidelines implicitly endorse the attempt by those who 14:21:15 manage the transcoder to monetize on the effort/investment of other 14:21:16 people. Of course, there is also a point that injecting extra content 14:21:18 will invariably affect usability negatively and as such should be avoided. 14:21:21 I suggest the following addition: 14:21:22 "4.3.6.3 Injection of external content 14:21:24 In its effort to optimise the user experience of non-mobile optimised 14:21:28 sites, a proxy *should not* inject extra content into the transcoded 14:21:31 pages, where the term 'extra content' refers to text, links, banners 14:21:32 and other multimedia content which is not available on the original 14:21:35 untranscoded page. Addition of links aimed at implementing pagination 14:21:37 and navigational shortcuts is admissible. 14:21:38 Note: For clarity, it is emphasised that W3C does not endorse injection 14:21:40 of third-party content into a transcoded page without the explicit 14:21:43 consent of the content owner"" 14:21:44 LC-2091: Consistently with my other comment that no extra content should be added 14:21:46 to transcoded web sites, I think that this should apply even more 14:21:48 strongly to mobile-optimised sites. Unfortunately, I see a lot of 14:21:51 transcoder deployments where operators and/or transcoder vendors feel 14:21:52 entitled to add advertisement and extra navigation bars to existing 14:21:55 mobile optimisec ontent. Because of this, I suggest the following 14:21:58 addition as a note to "4.3.1": 14:22:01 "Note: It should be stressed that, in case of a |Cache-Control: 14:22:02 no-transform| directive, adding any extra content (such as banners, 14:22:05 navigation bars and links not available in the original application) is 14:22:07 not admissable" 14:22:47 jo: this is really contentious, I don't think we can brush over it 14:23:26 tom: the LC comment is clear that they want no headers/footers added 14:24:04 francois: yes but there is also a wish to remark that a page is transcoded 14:24:22 ... especially if opt-out links have to be supplied 14:25:28 ... In sec 4.3.1 we state clearly that headers/footers are unacceptable with Cache-Control: no-transform 14:25:47 -jo 14:25:51 jo: so is this just for when transformations have been applied? 14:27:29 +jo 14:28:16 -jo 14:28:44 ... Do we say "out-of-scope", "never at all" or "minimised"? 14:28:55 + +1.208.995.aabb 14:29:07 zakim, aabb is me 14:29:07 +jo; got it 14:29:20 tomhume: what does minimised really mean? 14:30:13 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 tomhume: if we can't define "minimised" then "out-of-scope" is preferable 14:31:40 francois: yes, we shouldn't leave things open to interpretation 14:32:31 jo: OK, an "out-of-scope" note seems the way ahead 14:33:34 -jo 14:34:09 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 +jo 14:35:46 francois: if the "out-of-scope" section is small enough it should go in the Scope section near the Introduction 14:35:54 +1 14:36:05 jo: yes, play it by ear 14:36:07 +1 14:36:11 +1 14:36:36 +1 14:36:41 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 Topic: LC-2012: clarification of the introduction 14:37:04 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 +1 14:37:26 +1 14:37:26 +1 14:37:28 +1 14:37:38 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 Topic: LC-2068: on requests that contain Cache-Control: no-transform directives 14:37:59 LC-2012 therefore resolved yes 14:38:53 francois: I'm keeping LC tracker up-to-date in line with these resolutions 14:38:57 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 ... following a resolution next week, Jo you were worried about defining "transparent" 14:40:07 +1 14:40:11 +1 14:40:13 +1 14:40:26 +1 14:40:36 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 LC-2068 therefore resolved yes 14:40:54 -jo 14:41:02 Topic: LC-2009, LC-2010, LC-2011: the Link element strikes back 14:41:28 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0027.html Ping-pong on Link element 14:41:38 +jo 14:42:49 jo: this needs more discussion 14:43:14 Topic: LC-2023: transformation across character sets 14:43:20 ... shall we put aside until TAG responds to our comments? 14:43:35 +Bryan_Sullivan 14:43:44 Bryan has joined #bpwg 14:44:04 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0014.html Tom's comments on CT and character sets 14:44:20 tomhume: seems unreasonable of forbid recoding of anything except UTF-8 14:44:33 ... and there is clarity in the document already 14:44:56 francois: could include encoding in 4.3.6.1 examples 14:46:11 ... could include a generic "don't break content" normative statement - but we already have one of those 14:46:30 jo: can weave in a reference to Character-Encoding 14:47:01 -jo 14:47:23 ... 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 +??P8 14:47:54 zakim, ??p8 is me 14:47:54 +jo; got it 14:49:16 ... ie section 4.3.6 could contain a reference to Character-Encoding and any other transformation (eg headers/footers) 14:50:10 francois: Jo, what do you plan to say? 14:50:54 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 (plus something on pagination) 14:51:38 q+\ 14:51:42 q+ 14:51:46 q- 14:51:48 ack \ 14:51:49 francois: I'm scared this opens the door to anything! 14:52:22 Bryan: could we say "what is inserted is out-of-scope" 14:52:43 ... it's not particularly copyright issues, it's a can of worms 14:52:47 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 francois: still concerned this is very permissive 14:54:04 jo: are we happy leaving it at that? 14:54:06 +1 14:54:11 (could be a note in fact, rather than a separate sub-section) 14:54:25 +1 14:54:35 +1 14:55:55 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes partial" to LC-2023 14:56:04 +1 14:56:05 +1 14:56:13 +1 14:56:19 RESOLUTION: On character encoding mention this under 4.3.6.1 and respond "Yes partial" to LC-2023 14:56:49 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention the out of scope nature of the nature of restructuring under 4.3.6 somewhere 14:57:28 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 +1 14:57:51 +1 14:57:53 +1 14:58:06 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 Topic: LC-2065: opting-out of CT 14:58:36 -tomhume 14:58:42 francois: Jo replied to Denis 14:58:50 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0155.html Bryan's comments on LC-2065 14:59:33 Bryan: intention was to keep it as simple as possible 15:00:01 ... 1) original represantation must always be available 15:00:13 matt_ has joined #bpwg 15:00:21 ... 2) need ability to switch between the representations 15:00:49 ... 3) it is useful to remember the user's preference but not essential 15:01:25 ... So may be useful to include a section on user control of their preferences 15:01:56 francois: 1 and 2 are covered 15:02:54 ... but what we say about 2 could be a bit too generic 15:03:21 jo: Appendix E has some user preferences text 15:03:39 francois: should this be upgraded to a normative statement? 15:04:22 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Move content from Appendix E to 4.3.6 somewhere and reword appropriately (and yes, partial to LC-2065) 15:04:37 +1 15:05:13 jo: is 2 practical? 15:05:35 Bryan: yes, we've deployed systems with that capability 15:06:16 jo: but if the content-provider has more than one representation that's more complicated 15:06:56 Bryan: agreed, I meant switch just between CT-proxy transformation and untransformed 15:08:10 ... the spirit of the comment is to give the user control over what's happening 15:09:11 jo: so we anticipate there may be preferences persisted but we don't want to mandate it 15:09:28 Bryan: I'm happy with that 15:09:35 +1 15:10:00 RESOLUTION: Move content from Appendix E to 4.3.6 somewhere and reword appropriately (and yes, partial to LC-2065) 15:10:35 jo: that's 6 comments today!! 15:10:51 francois: it takes time that's for sure 15:11:29 -jo 15:11:31 -Bryan_Sullivan 15:11:31 -Francois 15:11:34 -rob 15:11:35 MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended 15:11:38 Attendees were Francois, tomhume, rob, jo, +1.208.995.aabb, Bryan_Sullivan 15:11:40 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:11:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-bpwg-minutes.html francois 15:14:40 rob has left #bpwg 16:04:58 RRSAgent, bye 16:04:58 I see no action items