06:40:31 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 06:40:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc 06:40:33 RRSAgent, make logs public 06:40:33 Zakim has joined #bpwg 06:40:35 Zakim, this will be BPWG 06:40:35 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()2:00AM scheduled to start 40 minutes ago 06:40:36 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 06:40:36 Date: 20 October 2008 06:40:48 s/Teleconference/F2F Meeting Day 1/ 06:40:57 Chair: DKA, Jo 06:41:10 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/Mandelieu/agenda.html 06:56:42 jo has joined #bpwg 06:58:06 SeanP has joined #bpwg 07:01:29 rob has joined #bpwg 07:01:41 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/registrants#bpwg Registrants for the F2F 07:02:01 Present: Kai, Jeff, Francois, DKA, Dom, Jo, SeanP, Rob, Adam 07:02:25 s/bpwg/mwbp/ 07:02:37 Present+ Nacho, Abel 07:03:55 Regrets: Soonho 07:07:00 Scribe: francois 07:07:03 ScribeNick: rancois 07:07:08 ScribeNick: francois 07:07:08 ScribeNick: Dom 07:07:10 ScribeNick: Dom 07:07:13 Scribe: Dom 07:08:05 DKA: Welcome to lovely Cannes-Mandelieu 07:09:03 Observers: Brazilian office guys@@@ 07:09:43 s/@@@/ Vagner Diniz, @@@/ 07:10:44 Observers+ Manuel Serrano (INRIA) 07:11:10 cgi-irc has joined #bpwg 07:11:17 Topic: Logistics 07:12:09 Scribes20am: Dom, Adam, Kai? 07:12:40 Scribes20pm: Rob, SeanP, Jo, Francois 07:12:57 zakim, cgi-irc is me 07:12:57 sorry, cgi-irc, I do not recognize a party named 'cgi-irc' 07:14:54 Present+ Jonathan, Seungyun 07:17:37 Topic: Content Transformation Guidelines 07:17:57 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Oct/0047.html detailed agenda for the review of last call comments 07:18:15 Francois: our content transformation guidelines are in last call, and received quite a few comments 07:18:42 ... we're at a stage where we're trying to agree on the resolutions to these comments 07:18:52 ... we already took a couple of important resolutions in the task force 07:19:01 ... first, we'll focus on content transformation proxies 07:19:24 ... the current document gives guidance both to content providers and content transformation proxies vendors 07:19:28 DKA has joined #bpwg 07:19:45 ... so we've decided to remove the normative statements for content providers, and we'll move them as informative only 07:20:02 ... and keep the focus only on content transformation proxies 07:20:27 ... the second resolution we've made was to soften the language used in HTTPs in the guidelines 07:20:45 ... trying to make sure we do not endorse the rewriting of HTTPS links 07:21:06 ... still trying to give guidance on how to do it correctly when you decide you want to do it 07:21:34 Jo: We would like something even less acknowldeging as RFC2119-MAY 07:22:08 ... as a presentational point, we're removing the MAY and will turn it into a conditional statement ("If you rewrite HTTPs links...") 07:22:29 Francois: A certain number of comments we're received were based on a misinterpretation of our intent 07:22:51 ... the rationales behind our normative statements were not always explicit, so we may need to add clarifications 07:22:59 ... We won't discuss HTTPs today 07:23:18 ... My goal today is to go through as many unresolved last call comments as possibly 07:24:40 ... there are some comments that are re-raising tough issues on which we had difficulty finding consensus 07:25:06 DKA: I think if there are no new elements brought on these issues, I think our default should be not to re-open the issue 07:25:40 Jo: but we need to consider whether the comment introduce new information we hadn't seen before 07:25:41 steph has joined #bpwg 07:26:07 Francois: my message list comments roughly in the order of the document 07:26:24 -> http://tinyurl.com/634lue Annotated view of the document with the lc comments 07:27:38 ... starting with LC-2066, missing reference - proposing we accept it 07:28:18 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ LC comments tracker on content transformation guidelines 07:28:35 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2066 LC-2066 07:29:05 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2066 and add the reference 07:29:16 +1 07:29:17 +1 07:29:21 RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2066 and add the reference 07:29:24 +1 07:29:31 +1 07:29:36 +1 07:30:07 Francois: next LC-2044 and 2069 07:30:13 .. on section 4.1.3 07:30:50 ... we want to restrict our guidelines to the "web browsing context" 07:31:19 ... but we don't have a definition for that, and there is no way to technically distinguish those 07:31:37 ... so putting normative statements on this is somewhat meaningless 07:33:25 DKA: we could alter it to say "if you recognize it's not web browsing, you must not..." 07:33:39 Rob: but how can you positively identify that? 07:34:10 Francois: no existing proposed recommendation 07:34:28 Jo: this text has been in for ages, proposed by Bryan 07:35:13 ... maybe Bryan would have some additional input on that one? 07:36:02 ... for 2044, I think we clarify that our intent was to target the values of the existing http headers, rather than their existence 07:36:09 s/we cl/we can cl/ 07:37:53 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2044 Resolve yes, and change the text to say "*values* of User Agent and Accecpt headers" 07:38:31 s/Accec/Acce/ 07:38:53 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2044 Resolve yes, and change the text to say "*values* of User Agent and Accecpt headers", and clarify that we do not propose guidance for new user agents' use of these headers, it is out of scop-e 07:39:15 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2044 Resolve yes, and change the text to say "*values* of User Agent and Accecpt headers", and clarify that we do not propose guidance for new user agents' use of these headers, it is out of scope 07:39:21 +1 07:57:56 DKA has joined #bpwg 07:58:21 aconnors has joined #bpwg 07:58:44 SeanP has joined #bpwg 07:59:09 rob has joined #bpwg 08:01:58 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:01:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html dom 08:03:28 sylee has joined #bpwg 08:03:47 jo has joined #bpwg 08:04:31 JonathanJ has joined #bpwg 08:19:02 ScribeNick: aconnors 08:19:06 Scribe: Adam 08:20:36 current text: "Proxies must act as though a no-transform directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request) unless they are able positively to determine that the user agent is a Web browser. The mechanism by which a proxy recognizes the user agent as a Web browser should use evidence from the HTTP request, in particular the User-Agent and Accept headers." 08:22:09 francois has joined #bpwg 08:22:40 q+ to suggest "...if they identify the client is a web browser" 08:23:01 ack rob 08:23:01 rob, you wanted to suggest "...if they identify the client is a web browser" 08:24:18 Francois: LC-2070, mostly editorial issue. 08:24:31 hendry has joined #bpwg 08:24:52 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text: "Proxies should act as though a no-transform directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request) if they have determined that the request has not been made for direct human presentation." 08:26:40 Kai has joined #bpwg 08:27:14 Kangchan has joined #bpwg 08:27:42 francois: [ discussion on appropriate tweaking of first para in 4.1.4 ] 08:28:17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2070, change para 1 to say "Aside from the usual caching procedures defined in RFC 2616, in some circumstances ..." 08:28:35 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2070, resolve yes, and change para 1 to say "Aside from the usual caching procedures defined in RFC 2616, in some circumstances ..." 08:28:42 +1 08:28:45 +1 08:28:49 +1 08:28:50 +1 08:28:59 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2070, resolve yes, and change para 1 to say "Aside from the usual caching procedures defined in RFC 2616, in some circumstances ..." 08:29:22 Topic: LC-2069 08:29:30 current text: "Proxies must act as though a no-transform directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request) unless they are able positively to determine that the user agent is a Web browser. The mechanism by which a proxy recognizes the user agent as a Web browser should use evidence from the HTTP request, in particular the User-Agent and Accept headers." 08:29:41 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text: "Proxies should act as though a no-transform directive is present (see 4.1.2 no-transform directive in Request) if they have determined that the request has not been made for direct human presentation." 08:30:04 steph has joined #bpwg 08:31:03 SeanP: "Direct human presentation" -- is it really clearer? 08:31:12 ... liked "web browser". 08:35:08 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request a transforming proxy should take reasonable steps to determine that "*the request is intended for direct human representaion*" 08:35:57 dka: should we get more specific ? 08:36:05 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request a transforming proxy should take reasonable steps to determine that "*the request is intended for direct human representaion*" and remove the second sentence ref User Agent and accept headers. 08:36:49 (this means we'll have to amend our response to LC-2044) 08:37:34 jo: Hard to be normative on this without writing a product spec. 08:38:02 dka: Not sure that this statement means much. 08:39:42 SeanP: Original intent of this recommendation was to not transform application data, an XHR request from a (potentially) transcoded page is a poor example since it might need subsequent transcoding. 08:40:33 dka: Should we go back to using the word "web-browser". 08:40:48 jo: Okay, just define what you mean by the word Web... 08:43:39 q+ 08:43:48 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request proxies should take account of the fact that HTTP is used as a transport mechanism for many other applications than "Traditional Browsing" and that alteration of HTTP requests for those applications can cause serious misoperation. 08:44:12 ack hend 08:44:48 q? 08:45:07 Observer+ Kai_Hendry 08:45:59 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request proxies ought to take account of the fact that HTTP is used as a transport mechanism for many other applications than "Traditional Browsing" and that alteration of HTTP requests for those applications can cause serious misoperation. 08:46:11 +1 08:46:11 +1 08:46:14 +1 08:46:17 +1 08:46:26 +1 08:47:48 adam: Not convinced that this really adds clarity. 08:48:04 jo: Lets take this action and move on, on the understanding that this needs some wordsmithing. 08:49:03 ACTION: Jo to word smith resolution on LC-2069 in line with its spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner andmore comprehensible 08:49:03 Created ACTION-865 - Word smith resolution on LC-2069 in line with its spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner andmore comprehensible [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27]. 08:49:20 q? 08:49:42 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2044, resolution on LC-2069 removes the part that required clarification, resolve partial, we won't talk about "use of evidence" 08:50:03 rrsagent, make minutes 08:50:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html jo 08:50:21 +1 08:50:23 +1 08:50:25 +1 08:50:31 +1 08:50:44 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2069. Resolved yes, with the replacement text: Before altering aspects of an HTTP request proxies ought to take account of the fact that HTTP is used as a transport mechanism for many other applications than "Traditional Browsing" and that alteration of HTTP requests for those applications can cause serious misoperation. 08:50:52 RESOLUTION: re LC-2044, resolution on LC-2069 removes the part that required clarification, resolve partial, we won't talk about "use of evidence" 08:51:12 Topic: LC-2003 No mention of whitelists 08:52:14 francois: Do we want to have this conversation or postpone. 08:52:30 jo: Couple of points: whitelist / blacklist aren't good words. 08:53:37 jo: Important that we don't make supositions on the internal working of transforming proxies... 08:54:08 jo: Make a note that we don't refer to whitelist / blacklist for the following reasons, etc. 08:55:03 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Make a note about the reasons for not referring to lists, of whatever hue, because the preumption about the internal operation of proxies is not in scope, as far as we are concenred these are "black boxes" 08:56:12 +1 08:56:17 +1 08:56:22 +1 08:56:24 +1 08:57:29 RESOLUTION: Make a note about the reasons for not referring to lists, of whatever hue, because the preumption about the internal operation of proxies is not in scope, as far as we are concenred these are "black boxes" 08:57:49 ACTION: Jo to include text referencing resolution to LC-2003 08:57:49 Created ACTION-866 - Include text referencing resolution to LC-2003 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27]. 08:58:02 Above resolution was for LC-2003, for which we resolve no. 08:58:33 Topic: LC-1996 et al ... Alteration of HTTP Header Values 08:59:11 NEWTON_VAGNER_DIN has joined #bpwg 09:00:23 Observer+ AnnBassetti 09:00:29 francois: Discussing which headers the proxy may reasonably change. We have a list of such headers, and have found no need to remove any headers (except possibly UAProf). We haven't found significant problems with changing the accept-headers since not generally used to identify device... 09:00:46 abel has joined #bpwg 09:02:03 q+ to respond to francois's eloquent peroration 09:02:47 francois: Need to change User-Agent / UAProf because of long-tail of legacy Web pages... Should we send original headers in X-Device-*? Is there a need? And are we allowed to define new headers in our document? 09:04:03 ack jo 09:04:03 jo, you wanted to respond to francois's eloquent peroration 09:04:26 jo: Whilst I almost agree with everything francois has said, two issues... 09:05:57 jo: Don't believe we are inventing new headers (X-Device-*) since they are already in use, just not written down. 09:06:32 jo: If a content provider was previously returning a 406 to mobile user-agents but changes to support them, it needs the original device headers so it can tell the proxy to stop transforming. 09:06:39 nacho has joined #bpwg 09:07:08 q+ to give another good reasonwhy they should be there 09:07:20 francois: Vary header could answer this need. 09:07:25 ack jo 09:07:25 jo, you wanted to give another good reasonwhy they should be there 09:07:55 q+ 09:08:03 dka: If we don't specify what the header is then we are not providing such a good service than if we define it. 09:08:19 [at least one reason for having the X-Device-* headers is statistics gathering] 09:08:24 francois: Sure, but all we need is a flag ("There was a transformation") that the content provider can respond to and request the original request. 09:09:00 [jo's making my point; how smart of him] 09:09:08 jo: If original device user-agent is not available then there will be no log data indicating a need for a mobile device. 09:09:47 ack seanp 09:09:52 rob: Original headers may expedite engineers making quick fixes. 09:11:07 francois: The statistics argument is pretty convincing. 09:11:36 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Don't change anything and say "no" to all the LC comments on this point (Francois to determine wich). 09:16:00 jcantera has joined #bpwg 09:17:18 [hmm... but aren't they other headers that *need* to be modified? http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.3 ] 09:17:27 francois: Some LC comments say that the current version makes it too easy for CT-proxy providers to find an excuse change headers... Should we split headers into two groups? Changing accept-headers being less serious than UAProf, etc. 09:17:58 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is but is reinforced by saying the only acceptable headers to change are User Agent and Accept and not to delete headers 09:17:59 [ e.g. "From"] 09:18:24 Kangchan has left #bpwg 09:18:58 francois: Find with this, but don't think it addresses concerns. 09:19:04 s/Find/Fine 09:20:03 jo: What people are concerned with is that headers be removed that a content-provider was relying from... Suggest that whatever the proxy does, it should be possible to reconstruct the original request. 09:20:22 SeanP: But what about the case where an operator / gateway adds a header that gets removed? 09:21:23 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is but is reinforced by saying the only acceptable headers to change are User Agent and Accept and not to delete headers the point being that by using X-Device plus headers that are present all headers the were sent by the UA and their values can be reconstructed by the server 09:21:53 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046 LC-2046 on HTTP header deletion 09:22:36 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is but is reinforced by saying the only acceptable headers to change are User Agent and Accept(-*) and not to delete headers the point being that by using X-Device plus headers that are present all headers the were sent by the UA and their values can be reconstructed by the server 09:24:50 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is but is reinforced by saying that the CT proxy SHOULD NOT change headers and values other than User Agent and Accept(-*), MUST NOT delete headers and it MUST be psosible for the server to reconstruct the original UA originated headers by using X-Device etc. 09:25:20 +1 09:25:28 ScribeNick: Kai 09:25:42 +1 09:25:49 +1 09:25:52 +1 09:25:55 +1 09:26:19 concur (+0) 09:26:20 RESOLUTION: WRT 4.1.5 Text remains substantially as is but is reinforced by saying that the CT proxy SHOULD NOT change headers and values other than User Agent and Accept(-*), MUST NOT delete headers and it MUST be psosible for the server to reconstruct the original UA originated headers by using X-Device etc. 09:27:07 Topic: LC-2074 09:28:33 francois: not everyone knows about this. I am fine with the text. It is a BP that we advise to do. 09:29:33 dom: we are saying http is nice but people may not handle it correctly. 09:29:53 francois: We want to downgrade the normative statement to a note 09:30:33 jo: sometimes you have to issue a get request 09:30:50 ...then there should be an intermediary page 09:31:19 dom: it is nice advice to give, but it is something we want CT proxies to evaluate? 09:31:33 jo: some are doing this routinely 09:32:02 francois: why don't we switch it back to informative only..the whole document 09:32:11 dka: I am going to shoot myself 09:32:28 francois: it is not the core of the problem at stake 09:32:48 jo: I think it is important based on the adverse reactions 09:33:31 ...people are sensitive to this and we should acknowledge this 09:33:42 francois: any objections to leaving it as is? 09:34:12 dka: in essence that is what we should do 09:34:27 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2074, resolve no, this is a best practice we recommend to CT-proxies. 09:35:34 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2074, resolve no. Based on our experience and feedback from servers whose operators take strong exception to this practice, we think it's reasonable to advise CT-proxies operators of this situation 09:35:41 +1 09:35:43 +1 09:35:46 +1 09:35:47 +1 09:35:52 RESOLUTION: re. LC-2074, resolve no. Based on our experience and feedback from servers whose operators take strong exception to this practice, we think it's reasonable to advise CT-proxies operators of this situation 09:36:05 Topic: LC-2075 09:36:52 francois: this is about what is identified as unacceptable responses 09:37:22 ...a CT proxy cannot differentiate here 09:38:28 ...i think we should keep the text and explain why we cannot specify the heuristics 09:38:41 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2037 yes, we have removed PUT partly in response to your comment 09:39:03 +1 09:39:03 +1 09:39:03 +1 09:39:06 +1 09:39:08 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2037 yes, we have removed PUT partly in response to your comment 09:39:57 [this was two part comment....thus the two resolutions] 09:40:03 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2037 ref retrying POSTs, no, we agree that it shouldnot be necessary to point this out, but sadly it is 09:40:18 +1 09:40:25 +1 09:40:45 +1 09:41:11 s/Topic: LC-2075/Topic: LC-2037 09:42:28 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2075 differences in behaviour: the internal operation of the proxy is not open to our specification, we need to point out to CT proxies that 406 responses are not the only way in which content proivders signal that they can't or won't handle a request 09:43:04 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2075 differences in behaviour: the internal operation of the proxy is not open to our specification, we need to point out to CT proxies that in practice 406 responses are not the only way in which content proivders signal that they can't or won't handle a request, though we do say that this is the preferred way of them doing so 09:43:56 +1 09:43:58 +1 09:44:01 +1 09:44:03 +1 09:44:19 +1 09:44:40 +0.1 09:44:47 RESOLUTION: LC-2075 differences in behaviour: the internal operation of the proxy is not open to our specification, we need to point out to CT proxies that in practice 406 responses are not the only way in which content proivders signal that they can't or won't handle a request, though we do say that this is the preferred way of them doing so 09:45:43 Topic: LC-2075 09:46:35 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2075, we have changed the text to refer only to POST and we acknowledge that this should not need restatement from RFC 2616 but we are aware of this kind of misoperation "in the wild" 09:46:48 +1 09:47:06 +1 09:47:14 +1 09:47:40 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2075, we have changed the text to refer only to POST and we acknowledge that this should not need restatement from RFC 2616 but we are aware of this kind of misoperation "in the wild" 09:49:07 break and discussing dinner arrangements 09:50:16 JonathanJ has joined #bpwg 09:57:47 tlr has joined #bpwg 09:59:07 Kai has joined #bpwg 09:59:26 ScribeNick: Kai 09:59:48 Topic: LC-2039 10:00:47 francois: the purpose of the text is to say that CT proxies need to behave consistently and the text needs clarification 10:01:25 q+ 10:01:45 ...you don't have to send the same headers if you are requesting an embedded resource 10:02:40 [I think "form part of a representation" is what makes the usage of the word "representation" confusing] 10:03:14 jo: i recall we received many comments on basic tests noting that the content negotiation depends on the headers 10:03:32 [part of a representation is a sequence of bytes, not a stylesheet or an image] 10:03:39 ....you could specifiy specific headers for each resource 10:03:58 ....in practice that not what browser do or servers implement 10:04:13 dom: firefox actually does that 10:04:20 jo: relying on this is unwise 10:04:47 ....it is relatively common for adaptation solution to regard headers in the whole rather than in the part 10:05:13 ....we are observing an in practice best practice 10:05:27 q? 10:05:30 ack jo 10:06:02 dom: mark is saying that giving the advice on a per header basis than the partial header is better 10:06:05 q? 10:06:21 ....content adaptation solutions are likely to use that 10:06:54 jo: we not allowing changes to the UAProf header 10:07:00 francois: just the UA header 10:07:04 q+ to note ambiguity of "part of a representation" 10:07:10 ack 10:07:15 ack dom 10:07:15 dom, you wanted to note ambiguity of "part of a representation" 10:07:47 dom: use of the term representation is confusing, from Mark. we need to change that. 10:08:03 ....is used to render the represenation 10:09:03 francois: I think we removed that wording from the latest draft of Basic Tests 10:09:34 Sean: could we say something like embedded resources? 10:09:44 dom: we can reformulate this later 10:10:06 jo: we use "vital to the rendering of that resource" 10:10:25 ...i am happy we have not used represenation incorrectly 10:11:02 use the term "included resources" per the definition mobileOK Basic Tests 10:11:10 SeanP: if you don't change the headers of the top leavel document you should not change them for the images...is what we are saying 10:11:27 s/leveal/level 10:12:19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2076 - yes, we will change the sue of the word representation and use something like "included resources" 10:12:34 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2076 - yes, we will change the use of the word representation and use something like "included resources" 10:12:36 s/Topic: LC-2039/Topic: LC-2076 10:12:47 +1 10:12:49 +1 10:12:54 +1 10:12:56 +1 10:12:58 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2076 - yes, we will change the use of the word representation and use something like "included resources" 10:13:42 Topic: Second part of LC-2076 and LC-2039 10:13:55 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2039 and LC-2076: Yes, we will clarify that we are talking about keeping the User Agent Header consistent 10:14:11 +1 10:14:18 +1 10:14:23 +1 10:14:23 +1 10:14:29 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2039 and LC-2076: Yes, we will clarify that we are talking about keeping the User Agent Header consistent 10:14:29 +1 10:14:39 s/ RESOLUTION/RESOLUTION 10:15:50 Topic: LC-2079 10:16:57 francois: section 4.2 will be changed from normative to informative 10:17:36 jcantera has joined #bpwg 10:18:04 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2079, yes, we intend to move server behaviour into a non-normative section and point out that servers may wish to respond with no-transform as this respects the intention of the requester 10:21:07 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2041, LC-2080 and LC-2079, yes, we intend to move server behaviour into a non-normative section and point out that servers may wish to respond with no-transform if they think that this respects the intention of the requester and that for the sake of clarity use of 406 is clearer than using a default representation using 200 and the text "your browser is not supported" 10:21:28 +1 10:22:21 dom: I don't think this responds to LC-2080 or LC-2ß41 10:22:27 jo: I think it does 10:23:23 dom: are we still mentioning cache control? 10:23:42 francois: we are talking about cache control in the request not to transform 10:24:12 nacho has joined #bpwg 10:24:22 +1 10:24:32 jo: I can't see a way around this. It is reasonable for us to say if there is a request not to transform the server can ...? 10:24:44 francois: we moving to non normative... 10:25:05 +1 10:25:18 +1 10:25:19 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2041, LC-2080 and LC-2079, yes, we intend to move server behaviour into a non-normative section and point out that servers may wish to respond with no-transform if they think that this respects the intention of the requester and that for the sake of clarity use of 406 is clearer than using a default representation using 200 and the text "your browser is not supported" 10:25:35 Topic: LC-2045 10:25:52 francois: it is about restating RFC HTTP 10:26:05 ...we should not. we could use a link 10:26:10 jo: we repeat for emphasis 10:26:28 ...in cases for violation happens 10:26:44 francois: but why do we repeat here and not in other sections? 10:26:53 SeanP: he asks if we really mean it 10:27:22 jo: then this is in the wrong section. This is about server behavior. 10:28:08 francois: into which section should it go? 10:28:26 ...4.1.2 or 4.3.1 10:29:01 (I updated the comment to reflect that it really is about 4.3.1) 10:29:04 ...we already have some text then....we may have to clarify this as we has some comment on it 10:29:18 SeanP: we are saying it twice already.. 10:29:28 jo: we could insert a note for emphasis 10:29:37 francois: or put down a link 10:30:04 jo: to 13.5.2 10:30:36 dka: why don't you want to put in text to emphasize? 10:30:47 jo: it can't get much clearer than what we have 10:31:17 dka: why is it wrong to repeat? 10:31:25 jo: we don't want to restate http 10:31:43 dka: you are making an assumption that somebody would read http spec 10:31:47 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2045, resolve partial, comment actually applies to 4.3.1 where it is emphasized that proxies MUST behave "transparently" with a link to the definition that contains links to sections 13.5.2 and 14.9.5 of RFC2616 10:31:52 jo: you would have to be 10:32:24 (should we actually provide as an appendix with all the conformance requirements of http that would be relevant to a content transformation proxy?) 10:33:04 [dom is welcome to make a contribution along those lines] 10:33:39 +1 10:33:40 +1 10:33:41 +1 10:34:15 RESOLUTION: re. LC-2045, resolve partial, comment actually applies to 4.3.1 where it is emphasized that proxies MUST behave "transparently" with a link to the definition that contains links to sections 13.5.2 and 14.9.5 of RFC2616 10:35:56 break for lunch reconvene 1:30 10:35:58 ACTION: daoust to look into an appendix with relevant normative statements of RFC2616 and report back to the group. 10:35:58 Created ACTION-867 - Look into an appendix with relevant normative statements of RFC2616 and report back to the group. [on François Daoust - due 2008-10-27]. 10:36:23 [break for lunch] 11:36:43 zakim, this is bpwg 11:36:43 dom, I see MWI_BPWG()2:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be bpwg". 11:36:53 zakim, dial out room_riviera_a 11:36:53 I don't understand 'dial out room_riviera_a', dom 11:37:00 zakim, call room_riviera_a 11:37:00 I am sorry, dom; I do not know a number for room_riviera_a 11:37:57 Topic: BP2 11:38:52 RRSAgent, draft minutes 11:38:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html francois 11:39:02 ScribeNick: rob 11:40:19 Topic: CT (Continued) 11:40:24 zakim, call room_riviera-a 11:40:24 I am sorry, dom; I do not know a number for room_riviera-a 11:41:32 jeffs has joined #bpwg 11:43:48 Observers+ Kangchan, DavidThevenin 11:43:55 Topic: LC-2081 11:44:19 Kangchan has joined #bpwg 11:44:26 francois: text is not clear enough 11:46:07 Jo: "If your content isn't consistent with the header that you're sending then you shouldn't send it" 11:46:11 q+ 11:47:08 ack seanp 11:47:35 seanP: it's only informative 11:48:13 dom: we agreed to remove normative burdens on origin servers 11:48:42 DKA: so do we need this at all? 11:49:06 aconnors has joined #bpwg 11:49:29 jeffs: but if I need to ask someone what this means then it's not useful 11:50:54 rrsagent, make minutes 11:50:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html Kangchan 11:51:19 dka: what's the other comment on this section? 11:51:59 francois: LC-2008 is already resolved 11:52:43 ... and that's not the problem here with LC-2081 11:54:21 dka: as part of this informationizationing is the proposal to remove the second para of 4.2.3.1? 11:54:42 jo: no 11:55:16 ... say "don't misrepresent your content" 11:55:47 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change second second para of 4.2.3.1 to say "don't misrepresent your content, even if you think that will avoid it being transformed" 11:57:00 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change second second para of 4.2.3.1 to say "don't systematically misrepresent your content, even if you think that will avoid it being transformed" 11:57:08 +1 11:57:11 +1 11:57:11 +1 11:58:16 +1 11:58:23 RESOLUTION: Change second second para of 4.2.3.1 to say "don't systematically misrepresent your content, even if you think that will avoid it being transformed" 11:58:45 re TAG response to our request for comments, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/09-minutes#item03 " Norm was to review this and see if it was something we needed to take a look at. [...] Dan moved it to be due next week, I'll endeavor to review it before then" 11:59:16 q? 11:59:44 francois: we should postpone this discussion until we get a response from TAG 11:59:50 [this also was on the agenda for Oct 16, but haven't found the minutes of that meeting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Oct/0088.html ] 12:00:21 ... what is clear is that the current text is based on an incorrect assertion 12:01:08 http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-tagmem-minutes.html doesn't have any mention of CT guidelines afaict 12:01:51 [and no update on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/173 , TAG's relation action item ] 12:01:58 ... and the text will need to change when we have TAG's advice 12:02:46 Kai has joined #bpwg 12:03:41 dom: Personally I don't think we should wait for TAG's response - we can close the issue now 12:04:13 jo: let's go back to the LC-2010 in question 12:04:27 i/francois: we should/Topic: LC-2010 12:05:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is void and thereby will be ignored. 12:06:08 seungyun has joined #bpwg 12:06:11 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is a reasonable comment but is now overtaken by events. 12:06:48 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is a reasonable comment but is now overtaken by events - namely that we don't propose to use fragment identifiers as a method to achieve this anymore. yada yada 12:07:01 +1 12:07:10 +1 12:07:15 +1 12:07:23 +1 (esp the yadayada part) 12:07:30 RESOLUTION: LC-2010 is a reasonable comment but is now overtaken by events - namely that we don't propose to use fragment identifiers as a method to achieve this anymore. 12:07:54 Topic: LC-2011 12:09:23 jo: this is saying "if you have a non-local reference you may or may not be referring to this instance" 12:11:37 " When a URI reference refers to a URI that is, aside from its fragment component (if any), identical to the base URI (Section 5.1), that reference is called a "same-document" reference. The most frequent 12:11:37 examples of same-document references are relative references that are empty or include only the number sign ("#") separator followed by a fragment identifier" 12:11:38 francois: the RFC explains how to construct a local reference 12:11:50 section 4.4, rfc 3986 12:12:31 (available e.g. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3986.html ) 12:13:25 steph has joined #bpwg 12:13:28 francois: even if you have an absolute URI to the same document you can determine that it is in fact a local URI 12:13:36 The base URI of a reference can be established in one of four ways, discussed below in order of precedence: Base URI Embedded in Content, Base URI from the Encapsulating Entity, Base URI from the Retrieval URI, Default Base URI 12:13:41 5.1 in RFC 3986 12:13:52 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.4 12:14:04 NEWTON_VAGNER_DIN has joined #bpwg 12:14:07 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1.3 12:14:15 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1 12:14:22 " If no base URI is embedded and the representation is not encapsulated 12:14:22 within some other entity, then, if a URI was used to retrieve the 12:14:22 representation, that URI shall be considered the base URI. Note that 12:14:22 if the retrieval was the result of a redirected request, the last URI 12:14:22 used (i.e., the URI that resulted in the actual retrieval of the 12:14:23 representation) is the base URI. 12:14:25 " 12:14:32 zakim, mute jo 12:14:32 sorry, dom, I don't know what conference this is 12:15:38 " Normalization of the base and target URIs prior to their comparison, 12:15:38 as described in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, is allowed but rarely 12:15:38 performed in practice. Normalization may increase the set of same- 12:15:38 document references, which may be of benefit to some caching 12:15:38 applications." 12:16:55 jo: we are trying to say "this doccument is formatted for a mobile" 12:18:47 ... we are also saying that content is available for media screen at this URI as well 12:19:21 ... and that's not possible to do with the link mechanism 12:23:09 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2011 in 4.2.3.2 (and elsewhere as suits clarity and editorial convenience) at para 3 and the following note. Make it clear that wehre more than one representation is available from the same URI this ought to be represented by using a Vary header and can't be represented using . In other cases the link header should be used to reference alternative representations 12:23:11 (i.e. where the Base URI, ref RFC 3986 secs 5.5 and 5.1 does not indicate a same document reference) 12:23:27 s/wehre/where 12:23:59 +1 12:24:01 +1 12:24:51 +1 to the sentiment but I don't like using the word "ought" 12:25:08 +1 (although I think it is complicated enough that it will be rarely used) 12:25:10 s/with the link mechanism/with the mechanism/ 12:25:11 + and agree w DKA 12:25:16 ought = Should (non normative, no relation to RFC 2119) 12:25:17 +1 12:25:20 +1 12:25:38 [latest link header in http draft, to make sure to derail the discussion http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02.txt ] 12:26:33 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2011 in 4.2.3.2 (and elsewhere as suits clarity and editorial convenience) at para 3 and the following note. Make it clear that where more than one representation is available from the same URI this ought to be represented by using a Vary header and can't be represented using . In other cases the link header should be used to reference alternative representations (i.e. where the Base URI, ref RFC 3986 secs 5.5 12:26:34 and 5.1 does not indicate a same document reference) 12:26:44 [Jo notes that it doesn't feature the equivalent of the "media" attribute in html] 12:27:15 [jo note that the draft-nottingham etc. does not provide a machanism to represent the equivant of media attribute] 12:27:18 s/secs 5.5/secs 5.5 and 5.1 does not indicate a same document reference)/ 12:27:35 s/does/do 12:28:37 francois: and we won't mention fragment identifiers because it's not relevant 12:29:38 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2009, resolve yes, acknowledge RFC3986 section 4.4 and remove the part on fragment identifiers 12:29:48 +1 12:29:50 +1 12:29:51 +1 12:29:53 +1 12:30:08 RESOLUTION: re. LC-2009, resolve yes, acknowledge RFC3986 section 4.4 and remove the part on fragment identifiers 12:30:39 +11 12:30:50 s/11/1 12:30:59 jcantera has joined #bpwg 12:31:41 zakim, move into speed resolutions mode 12:31:41 I don't understand 'move into speed resolutions mode', dom 12:31:52 zakim, draft resolutions for us 12:31:52 I don't understand 'draft resolutions for us', dom 12:31:57 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, we do not want to step 12:32:12 Topic: LC-2020 12:32:13 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, we do not want to step into legal maters. 12:32:39 s/maters/matters 12:32:45 ScribeNick: SeanP 12:32:48 Scribe: Sean 12:33:31 Francois: If the meta Copyright tag, then the page must not be reformatted. 12:33:52 DKA: Do we need to consider this since you are recommending that we resolve no. 12:34:28 +1 12:34:37 DOM: I think the comment is bogus. 12:35:25 Jo: We need to say the copyright of the material is not affected by the copyright meta tag. 12:35:46 Jo: Point is valid, however. 12:36:37 DKA: This stuff is up to the lawyers do decide. 12:36:41 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, the presence or absence of a Copyright is not a clear indication of the rights associated with the page 12:36:55 +1 12:37:06 +1 12:37:09 RESOLUTION: re. LC-2020, resolve no, the presence or absence of a Copyright is not a clear indication of the rights associated with the page 12:37:35 +1 12:38:07 Topic: LC-2082 12:38:29 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2082, LC-2042, resolve no, cascading proxies are not as easy as they seem, and the "MUST NOT" only applies to "CT" proxies, not proxies in general. 12:38:33 Topic: LC-2082, LC-2042 12:39:47 Francois: What we say in 4.3.2, we say if there is a Warning header, then proxies should not perform transformation. We decided that having 2 cascading CT proxies was out of scope. 12:40:14 Dom: But 4.3.2 doesn't say it is out of scope. 12:40:24 Francois: Right. 12:41:42 Jo: The point of this section is to say that if the content goes thru a CT proxy then goes through another one, it can be a problem. 12:42:01 Dom: Doesn't that rule out server side transformation. 12:42:17 Jo: No. Since server-side transformation is out of scope. 12:42:44 Francois: But we are saying is that multiple CT proxies are out of scope, but we are addressing it. 12:43:04 Jo: No we are saying server side transformation is out of scope, not multiple CT proxies. 12:43:41 Francois: We say earlier in the document that we don't discuss multiple CT proxies in detail. 12:44:11 Francois: These guide lines only apply to CT proxies, not all proxies. 12:45:59 DKA: A real example from Vodafone. There was content that was transformed by Yahoo, then transformed again by Novarra. This caused a problem since they had no knowledge of each other. 12:46:32 Kai: But aren't we just legislating that people shouldn't make mistakes. 12:47:21 Dom: If a CT proxy transforms to mobile friendly state, why couldn't another proxy transform it again. 12:47:56 DKA: We're trying to get CPs to add logic to make their content to work well on mobile devices. 12:48:52 Kai: By saying this you are making it difficult to perform a two step process. 12:49:19 Jo: Why not leave out the Warning header if you want to do that. 12:49:49 Dom: We are adding a meaning to the Warning header that is not in the original specification. 12:49:57 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT LC-2082, LC2042: resolve_yes and remove 4.3.2 12:51:07 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WRT LC-2082, LC2042: resolve_yes and remove 4.3.2 replace with a section noting that intermediate proxies should send no-transform if they want to inhibit further transformation 12:51:40 +1 12:51:46 +1 12:51:48 +1 12:51:50 +1 12:51:50 +1 12:51:54 +1 12:52:00 RESOLUTION: WRT LC-2082, LC2042: resolve_yes and remove 4.3.2 replace with a section noting that intermediate proxies should send no-transform if they want to inhibit further transformation 12:52:12 Topic: LC-2083 12:53:17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2083, resolve partial, we are addressing legacy content, there is no way to be more precise. Remove the part on "servers that do not implement this Recommendation". 12:53:21 Francois: We should resolve "No" since we can't be more precise because we are dealing with legacy content. 12:53:55 DKA: We should make it clear that this kind thing is what differentiates CT proxies. 12:56:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2083, no, it is an important part of the mechanism described in 4.1.5 so has to be here in some form. We don't mean to propose this as a fail safe mechanism, we merely mean to indicate that CT proxies may need to employ heuristics to provide an improved service for their users. Remove reference to conforming servers. 12:56:43 +1 12:56:47 +1 12:56:57 +1 12:56:58 +1 12:57:08 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2083, no, it is an important part of the mechanism described in 4.1.5 so has to be here in some form. We don't mean to propose this as a fail safe mechanism, we merely mean to indicate that CT proxies may need to employ heuristics to provide an improved service for their users. Remove reference to conforming servers. 12:57:15 Topic: LC-2084 12:57:33 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial, and add a link back to 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case. 12:58:20 Francois: Use case is in 4.1.5.2 which is already there. 12:59:02 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve no since ample reasoning is provided. 12:59:13 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve no since ample reasoning is provided (link to 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case). 12:59:28 +1 12:59:37 Jo: This is a failsafe mechanism. 13:00:08 Francois: What I had in mind is that the reference to 4.1.5.2 should be at the beginning of the sentence. 13:00:53 VagnerBrazil has joined #bpwg 13:01:43 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial since this is part of the fail safe mechanism defined in 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case. Move reference to 4.1.5.2 earlier int he sentence and simplify wording 13:02:17 +1 13:02:23 -1 13:02:23 +1 13:02:39 ±1 13:02:40 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial since this is part of the fail safe mechanism defined in 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case. Move reference to 4.1.5.2 earlier int he sentence and simplify wording, add reference to example kindly to be re-provided by Francois 13:02:51 +1 13:02:56 +1 13:02:56 +1 13:03:04 +1 13:03:06 +1 13:03:13 RESOLUTION: re. LC-2084, resolve partial since this is part of the fail safe mechanism defined in 4.1.5.2 that explains the use case. Move reference to 4.1.5.2 earlier int he sentence and simplify wording, add reference to example kindly to be re-provided by Francois 13:03:58 Topic: Many LC's on 4.3.6 13:04:20 Francois: Most CP's misread this section. 13:05:34 Francois: Most of the comments are to be comprehensive on the heuristics, but we can't do that. 13:05:52 Topic: LC-2090 13:07:06 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no since lots of non-mobile web pages actually send xhtml+xml mime type. 13:07:15 Francois: This may be true for the time being, but we can't really do this. 13:07:22 Topic: LC-1998 13:07:24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no since lots of non-mobile web pages actually send xhtml+xml mime type. 13:08:01 PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS: Remove the examples of mobile-specifc doctypes in 4.3.6 and remain silent on this issue... 13:08:19 Jo: We didn't put in content types for good reasons. We probably should remove the lists of doc types. 13:08:42 Francois: I think it is good to have some examples, but to just say they are examples. 13:09:03 Dom: Having examples of heuristics makes it seem like we are endorsing them. 13:09:11 Jo: This is kind of my point. 13:09:27 DKA: I think some examples are good. 13:09:51 Jeff: I would really object to removing examples. 13:10:21 DKA: You are limiting the scope of the document if you are limiting to implementors of CT proxies. 13:11:12 Jo: Our job is to be clear, not disoursive (?). 13:11:39 Jeff: I think the audience should also be people developing the content, so the examples are useful. 13:12:17 s/disoursive/discoursive/ 13:12:54 DKA: We need to be clear that these are examples. We are trying to be responsive to the community that made these comments. 13:13:39 Dom: By increasing the number of examples, we don't really do any service. 13:13:47 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove examples of heuristics from the main run of text and include Appendices to list in a *non-endorsed* way lists of stuff that other people have used but are No-endorsed by us, and did I mentionthat they are not endorsed 13:13:49 Francois: Why don't we move the examples to an appendix? 13:14:07 +1 13:14:09 +1 13:14:15 +1 13:14:18 RESOLUTION: Remove examples of heuristics from the main run of text and include Appendices to list in a *non-endorsed* way lists of stuff that other people have used but are No-endorsed by us, and did I mentionthat they are not endorsed 13:14:33 +1 with the addition of some of the additional doctypes listed by the feedback... 13:14:39 +1 13:14:43 (at editor's discression) 13:14:59 Topic: LC-1998 13:15:27 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no since lots of non-mobile web pages actually send xhtml+xml mime type. 13:16:48 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no and point out to commenter that this assumption is unsafe without other supporting evidence. 13:17:01 +1 13:17:02 +1 13:17:05 +1 13:17:07 RESOLUTION: re. LC-1998, resolve no and point out to commenter that this assumption is unsafe without other supporting evidence. 13:17:19 +1 13:17:29 Topic: LC-1999 13:18:19 "increase your page size!" 13:18:35 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolve comenter and point out to commenter that size on its own is unsafe as an idicator of mobile friendlines e.gf. content with emdedded flash 13:18:44 s/idi/indi/ 13:18:53 s/gf/g/ 13:19:07 +1 13:19:08 +1 13:19:11 +1 13:19:15 RESOLUTION: Resolve comenter and point out to commenter that size on its own is unsafe as an idicator of mobile friendlines e.gf. content with emdedded flash 13:19:18 +1 s/comenter/commenter 13:19:24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-1999 Resolve no commenter and point out to commenter that size on its own is unsafe as an indicator of mobile friendlines e.g content with embedded flash 13:19:33 +1 13:19:39 s// PROPOSED/ 13:19:50 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-1999 Resolve no commenter and point out to commenter that size on its own is unsafe as an indicator of mobile friendlines e.g content with embedded flash 13:20:05 Topic: LC-2048 13:20:47 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:20:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html dom 13:21:36 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2048 and LC-2002, LC-2052 and LC-2021, resolve partial, and say that we include these examples as non-endorsed heuristics in the non endorsed heuristics appendi 13:21:39 +1 13:21:43 +1 13:21:48 +1 13:21:54 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2048 and LC-2002, LC-2052 and LC-2021, resolve partial, and say that we include these examples as non-endorsed heuristics in the non endorsed heuristics appendix 13:21:59 +1 13:22:53 Topic: LC-2022 13:23:54 Francois: Put this one separate in case we missed something. I don't think we did. 13:24:15 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2022 resolve partial, we agree that this was not included and have added it as a non-endorsed heuristic in the relevant appendix 13:24:27 +1 13:24:31 +1 13:24:36 +1 13:24:44 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2022 resolve partial, we agree that this was not included and have added it as a non-endorsed heuristic in the relevant appendix 13:24:50 x-zillon/tharg 13:26:02 Topic: LC-2090, LC-2000 13:26:28 Francois: I think this is out of scope. It's a legal matter 13:27:20 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2090 and LC-2000, resolve no, other than to note that adding extra content is forbidden where no-transform is present 13:27:34 +1 13:27:37 +1 13:28:09 +1 13:28:17 Present+ RigoWenning 13:30:22 Rigo: There should be a way to keep CT proxies from transforming. 13:31:02 Francois: There is another point in the comment where the CT proxy could add an add. 13:31:09 s/add/ad/ 13:32:28 Jo: If I put a copyright notice on my content, but no no-transform, the commenters will say we are not doing our job. Should just copyright notice be necessary? 13:33:16 Rigo: No. Copyright notice is American disease. Even in U.S. copyright notice is not necessary anymore. 13:34:02 ...Even if you assert your copyright and put your content on the web, it is implicit statement that you want people to read my stuff. This means you need to live with what is socially adequate in the medium. 13:34:55 ...The copyright holder needs to indicate that the he/she wants to opt out of this kind of thing. 13:35:26 Rigo: 13:35:28 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2090 and LC-2000, resolve no, other than to note that adding extra content is forbidden where no-transform is present and content providers should use this if they want to be sure their content is not added to 13:35:57 +1 13:36:00 +1 13:36:02 +1 13:36:07 +1 13:36:11 +1 13:36:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:36:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html jo 13:36:14 +1 13:36:21 VagnerBrazil has joined #bpwg 13:36:40 VagnerBrazil has joined #bpwg 13:36:56 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2090 and LC-2000, resolve no, other than to note that adding extra content is forbidden where no-transform is present and content providers should use this if they want to be sure their content is not added to 13:37:09 +1 13:37:22 [break] 13:53:49 q? 14:00:39 Scribe: jeffs 14:00:43 ScribeNick: jeffs 14:01:11 DKA has joined #bpwg 14:01:43 SeanP has joined #bpwg 14:02:23 q? 14:02:33 ScribeNick: jeffs 14:02:36 abel has joined #bpwg 14:02:37 Scribe: Jeff 14:02:38 rob has joined #bpwg 14:03:05 next last-call comment: 2013 14:03:56 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2013, resolve yes, and clarify that we mean 14:03:56 "in the absence of a Vary HTTP header and in the absence of a 14:03:56 no-transform directive defined at the HTTP level or using a meta 14:03:56 http-equiv element containing Cache-Control: no-transform" 14:04:32 re: meta http-equiv - 4.3.6 Proxy Decision to Transform 14:05:25 Kai has joined #bpwg 14:05:37 francois: this applies to 4.3.1 14:06:31 francois: servers may not take account of content-transformation headers 14:07:17 francois: headers might have precedent 14:07:28 s/francois/dom 14:08:00 jo has joined #bpwg 14:08:13 is the only reason we do this is for legacy converters? no, servers may not have access to content-transformation 14:08:24 q? 14:09:09 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2013 clarify in 4.3.1 and 4.3.6 and in other relevant sections that meta http-equiv should be consulted if the relevant actual HTTP header is not present 14:09:19 dom: the only dependable indicator is cache-n-transform directory 14:09:36 francois: move it to 4.3.1?? 14:09:39 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2013, resolve yes, clarify in 4.3.1 and 4.3.6 and in other relevant sections that meta http-equiv should be consulted if the relevant actual HTTP header is not present 14:10:40 +1 14:10:43 +1 14:10:45 +1 14:10:49 +1 14:10:57 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2013, resolve yes, clarify in 4.3.1 and 4.3.6 and in other relevant sections that meta http-equiv should be consulted if the relevant actual HTTP header is not present 14:11:00 +1 14:11:03 +1 14:11:22 Topic: LC-2051 14:11:58 Topic: LC-2051 - Open Mobile Alliance Standard Transcoding Interface work - Appendix A and D 14:12:10 http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/sti_v10.aspx 14:12:26 -> http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/sti_v10.aspx Standard Transcoding Interface 14:13:24 dka: let us not put dependencies behind this, so we can finalize the document 14:13:40 francois: will review the document and propose edits 14:14:21 http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/docs/CopyrightClick.aspx?pck=STI&file=V1_0-20050607-C/OMA-ERELD-STI-V1_0-20050607-C.pdf 14:14:44 ACTION: LC-2051, daoust to review OMA STI to see if there's something relevant for CT 14:14:44 Sorry, couldn't find user - LC-2051, 14:14:53 Topic: LC-1995 14:14:56 ACTION: daoust to review OMA STI to see if there's something relevant for CT for LC-2051 14:14:57 Created ACTION-868 - Review OMA STI to see if there's something relevant for CT for LC-2051 [on François Daoust - due 2008-10-27]. 14:15:22 VagnerBrazil has joined #bpwg 14:15:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1995, resolve yes, and replace "recent draft of HTTP" by "HTTP 1/1" 14:15:27 LC-1995 - About "recent" HTTP "drafts" - Appendix D.2 14:15:53 [should we link to mark nottingham's draft?] 14:15:54 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1995, resolve yes, and replace "recent draft of HTTP" by "HTTP /1.1" 14:16:00 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-1995, resolve yes, and replace "recent draft of HTTP" by "HTTP/1.1" 14:16:05 +1 14:16:12 +1 14:16:13 +1 14:16:20 Topic: LC-2047 14:16:27 Topic: LC-2047 - Cascading proxies - Appendix D.4 Inter Proxy Communication 14:16:49 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve no, and point out a specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter 14:16:53 francois: long comment about how to resolve cascading proxies case 14:17:28 francois: resolution is not easy in practice 14:18:33 francois: with cascading proxies, cannot ontrol the chain 14:18:39 s/ontrol/control 14:18:59 jo: key point: let us define our terms 14:19:21 jon: I interpret "upstream" & "downstream" differently than common parlance 14:19:28 s/jon/jo 14:19:59 dka: think of the stream as between the server and the client... therefore upstream points to server and downstream points to client 14:20:08 jo: salmon metaphor 14:20:38 francois: the upstream proxy cannot transform when there is a downstream proxy 14:20:44 jo: that is not what we do 14:21:05 jo: we do not regard downstream proxies as user agents in their own right 14:21:45 jo: comment is pointing out the combination of proxies makes a non-user-agent 14:22:00 jo: therefore must be passed on without transformation 14:22:13 dom & francois: the results are the same 14:22:39 dom: saying "do as if downstream proxy is not a user agent" 14:23:38 francois: there is no reason to say the downsteam proxy has precedence over the upstream one 14:23:54 dka: the upstream proxy knows more about the content 14:24:29 francois: the first part is saying we cannot choose which has precedence 14:24:47 francois: the point is about the appendix 14:24:57 jo: not only about the appendix 14:25:23 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Hi Shadi 14:25:29 +1 14:25:30 Observer+ Shadi 14:26:08 discussion: is the proxy part of the server or not? 14:26:25 jo: at whiteboard & drawing things 14:27:21 francois_ has joined #bpwg 14:27:46 jo: whatever comes out of the content provider's proxy may or may not remain the same as it moves through intermediate proxies 14:28:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:28:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html francois 14:29:00 dom & jo: interchange over sould be used vs could be used 14:29:37 jo: can of worms: the transformers in the middle 14:30:41 dom: we should say this is not as simple as it looks and we are looking for a way to state the problem & solution simply 14:30:53 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve no, and point out a specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter 14:31:51 jo: add proxies should not add cache-control header 14:31:56 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve partial, and point out a specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter and add CT proxies should not add no-transform directive on upstream request. 14:32:29 jo: when it passes through the network, you should not add cache-control header 14:33:09 jo: if anybody is doing transformation, it should be the one closest to the owner of what is being requested 14:34:17 jo & francois: discussion of what we have said in past 14:35:44 LC-2047.a 14:39:21 discussion: inter-relationships between the 3 parts of the comment/proposal 14:40:39 rob: almost impossible to tell who has done what in chain of proxies along path from client (requester) to server (responder) 14:40:42 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document 14:41:38 jo: if you are a conforming proxy and receive a request, what should you do? 14:42:51 jo & dom: discussion of whether altered headers result or not 14:44:17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. LC-2047, resolve partial, and point out a specific example of why it's not that simple to the commenter. 14:44:18 dka: should we include this recommendation? jo: already prohibited 14:45:47 jo: do we want to say not to change the value of the warning itself? 14:47:11 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document b. we think that this is defined in HTTP and don't need to elaborate on it unless there are specific examples of misoperation that we can... 14:47:13 ...refer to and c) we disagree and think that this is very complex and requires a substantial use case analysis to achieve a complete understanding of this, and we also think that a more complex HTTP vocabulary is required to achieve useful results. 14:47:14 dka: concern that a lot of thought went into these comments & we may not be addressing them thoroughly 14:48:54 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document 14:49:30 +1 14:49:31 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part b. we think that this is defined in HTTP and don't need to elaborate on it unless there are specific examples of misoperation that we can refer to 14:50:12 discussion: simplify to say content transformers must be transparent?? 14:51:00 discussion: concern over variability of possible cases 14:51:02 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part c. we disagree and think that this is very complex and requires a substantial use case analysis to achieve a complete understanding. We think that a more complex HTTP vocabulary for inter proxy operation is likely to be required to achieve useful results, and we are not chartered to create technology of that kind 14:51:29 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add a section with a diagram explaining which proxies are in scope 14:52:50 discussion: are there cases where proxy server closest to the client should hold forth?? 14:53:10 +1 to Jo's proposed resolution triptych 14:53:36 isn't it a tetratych? 14:53:55 s/tra/trap/ actually 14:53:56 rob: what happens when https on closest to client but not on one closest to destination server 14:54:09 +1 14:54:25 +1 to the tetratych then 14:55:37 +1 to the tetratych 14:55:50 +1 to the tetratych 14:56:05 +1 to all of them 14:56:18 +1 to cheesetyche 14:56:19 s/tetrat/tetrap/g 14:56:35 s/tetrapy/tetrapty/g 14:57:04 Scribe: Jo 14:57:18 http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html 14:57:21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document 14:57:31 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part a. No. We do not view the CT proxy as being a user agent in its own right, it is a proxy like any other. Knowing that it is upstream of other proxies doesn't alter it's prescibed behaviour according to this document 14:57:41 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part b. we think that this is defined in HTTP and don't need to elaborate on it unless there are specific examples of misoperation that we can refer to 14:57:53 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2047 part c. we disagree and think that this is very complex and requires a substantial use case analysis to achieve a complete understanding. We think that a more complex HTTP vocabulary for inter proxy operation is likely to be required to achieve useful results, and we are not chartered to create technology of that kind 14:58:00 RESOLUTION: Add a section with a diagram explaining which proxies are in scope 14:58:23 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:58:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html dom 14:58:33 Scribe: Jeffs 14:58:44 ScribeNick: jeffs 14:58:56 presentation of MobileOK logo and policy 14:59:03 Topic: W3C mobileOK Logo and policy 14:59:33 2.2 conditions for conformance: 2 criteria 14:59:42 Topic: W3C mobileOK Logo and policy 15:02:12 -> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html mobileOK policy 15:02:28 conditions to use these, all tests applicable to Basic Tests 1.0 accomplished w a PASS or a WARN & reasonable efforts undertaken to comply w the conditions in the conformance seciton and not covered by any test 15:03:12 s/seciton/section 15:03:43 so who certifies someone has met the criteria? 15:03:54 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/081018 conformance section of latest draft of mobileOK 15:04:31 must enforce the conditions set or trademark protections are lost 15:05:10 (this relates to ISSUE-250) 15:05:30 and ACTION-799 15:05:33 businesses may emerge which certify meeting these conditions, like the ISO approach 15:05:34 ACTION-799? 15:05:34 ACTION-799 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to get back to rigo on updating the mobileOK license -- due 2008-07-24 -- OPEN 15:05:34 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/799 15:06:51 dom to rigo: in case of MobileOK 1.0 all tests are machine-testable 15:07:31 rigo: suggests putting 2nd bullet point (reasonable efforts undertaken to comply w the conditions in the conformance seciton and not covered by any test) into our documents 15:08:08 ack jo 15:08:49 jo: what is meant by "conditions in the conformance section and not covered by any test" 15:09:21 dom: mobileOK basic is only about machine-testable issues 15:10:11 rigo: suggestion for today is throw out 2nd bullet point & just say must pass machine-run auto-testing 15:10:12 q+ to raise the issue of "aspirational mobileOK" 15:10:57 rigo: the simpler the rule, the easier to handle 15:12:12 rigo: could get more granular on "applicable to the resource" by including a URI 15:12:37 jo: URI is included in document 15:12:44 rigo: then I am clear 15:14:12 jo: role of the checker need to be looked at in the light of this 15:14:46 q+ shadi 15:15:06 rigo: checker is just a tool to claim passed & thus mobileOK 15:15:37 jo: is the wording about "against a single resource" okay 15:16:01 rigo: change to the URI rather than the resources behind the URI 15:17:29 dom: the object of conformance is a discussion topic 15:17:56 steph has joined #bpwg 15:18:12 rigo: must be taken in context 15:19:00 dom: claims of conformance may be made by a resource identified by a URI 15:19:42 rigo: if we say "a single URI that passes" everyone can understand 15:20:32 "Specifically, a claim of mobileOK may only be made of a URI that when dereferenced in the manner described in [mobileOK] yields a response that passes all the tests contained in mobileOK Basic Tests." 15:20:50 q? 15:21:16 rigo: should we just say an object behind a URI can claim conformance? 15:22:20 rigo will rewrite jo's sentence, likes it 15:22:44 should read "Specifically, a claim of mobileOK *conformance* may only be made of a URI that when dereferenced in the manner described in [mobileOK] yields a response that passes all the tests contained in mobileOK Basic Tests." 15:23:23 dom: various earlier questions addressed by this approach 15:25:03 rigo: shape primary in establishing recognition value re logo, color etc changes not as critical 15:25:18 q+ to ask if the license should specify that the logo should not come from w3C servers 15:25:57 ack jo 15:25:57 jo, you wanted to ask if the license should specify that the logo should not come from w3C servers 15:27:07 jo: logo is not in and of itself a conformance claim, needs to include something machine-readable like headers to establish claim? is rigo saying logo itself indicates claim is present? 15:29:36 rigo: there are sufficient use cases that this version of the terms & conditions does not preclude us also creating a machine-run protocol to automatically include as meeting terms&conditions 15:30:19 q+ to ask if it is not a risk to focus on the logo in the policy, as it will steer users to only use the visual representation? 15:30:57 ISSUE-250? 15:30:57 ISSUE-250 -- The mobileOK License -- OPEN 15:30:57 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250 15:31:38 ACTION: Jo to review the mobileOK license in more details and send further questions to rigo 15:31:41 Created ACTION-869 - Review the mobileOK license in more details and send further questions to rigo [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27]. 15:31:57 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We live Rigo! 15:32:00 I'm proposing to close ACTION-799 15:32:01 jo: need to look this over and think about it in more detail before we move beyond a resolution to think about it 15:32:13 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We love Rigo! 15:32:17 RESOLUTION: we love Rigo! 15:32:26 close ACTION-799 15:32:26 ACTION-799 Get back to rigo on updating the mobileOK license closed 15:32:55 ACTION-869? 15:32:56 ACTION-869 -- Jo Rabin to review the mobileOK license in more details and send further questions to rigo -- due 2008-10-27 -- OPEN 15:32:56 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/869 15:33:04 q? 15:33:08 q- 15:33:33 jo: wants to close on the subject by (as editor of the MobileOK document) by forming sub-committee w Dom & Rigo to discuss and work on this 15:33:35 q+ shadi later 15:33:40 q- shadi later 15:33:44 q+ shadi 15:33:54 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Dom, Jo and Rigo to form a subcommittee to come back with a final proposal to the group following on from Rigo's current proposal. 15:34:28 RESOLUTION: Dom, Jo and Rigo to form a subcommittee to come back with a final proposal to the group within 4 weeks following on from Rigo's current proposal. 15:34:43 q? 15:34:46 ack kai 15:34:46 Kai, you wanted to ask if it is not a risk to focus on the logo in the policy, as it will steer users to only use the visual representation? 15:34:54 Kai: focus on logo may make machine-testing "fall by the wayside" 15:35:37 s/testing/readable 15:36:09 ack shadi 15:36:43 shadi: wants to clarify that WCAG conformance is not about machine vs human testing 15:37:05 shadi: do not be worried about having manual tests for MobileOK in future 15:37:23 shadi: many models of conformance which can be explored 15:38:08 shadi: ensure there are objectively testable criteria to avoid different reviewers coming up with different results 15:38:31 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:38:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html francois 15:38:33 Resolution of Boo-yeah! 15:38:58 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:38:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html francois 15:39:01 Topic: Dinner 15:39:11 Les Bartavelles 15:39:20 pl Château 15:39:20 06210 Mandelieu la Napoule 15:39:22 Restaurant is called les bartavelles 15:39:24 Phone: +33 4 93 49 95 15 15:40:12 [Meeting adjourned] 15:40:16 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:40:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html francois 15:40:38 abel has left #bpwg 15:45:15 RRSAgent, bye 15:45:15 I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-actions.rdf : 15:45:15 ACTION: Jo to word smith resolution on LC-2069 in line with its spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner andmore comprehensible [1] 15:45:15 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc#T08-49-03 15:45:15 ACTION: Jo to include text referencing resolution to LC-2003 [2] 15:45:15 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc#T08-57-49 15:45:15 ACTION: daoust to look into an appendix with relevant normative statements of RFC2616 and report back to the group. [3] 15:45:15 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc#T10-35-58 15:45:15 ACTION: LC-2051, daoust to review OMA STI to see if there's something relevant for CT [4] 15:45:15 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc#T14-14-44 15:45:15 ACTION: daoust to review OMA STI to see if there's something relevant for CT for LC-2051 [5] 15:45:15 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc#T14-14-56 15:45:15 ACTION: Jo to review the mobileOK license in more details and send further questions to rigo [6] 15:45:15 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-irc#T15-31-38 15:45:18 Zakim, bye 15:45:18 Zakim has left #bpwg