IRC log of bpwg on 2008-11-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:03 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:59:03 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-irc
14:59:05 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:05 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:59:07 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:59:07 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:08 [trackbot]: Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:59:08 [trackbot]: Date: 04 November 2008
14:59:13 [francois]: Chair: francois
14:59:33 [francois]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Oct/0066.html
14:59:45 [francois]: Regrets: AndrewS
15:00:19 [SeanP]: SeanP has joined #bpwg
15:01:06 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started
15:01:14 [Zakim]: +Francois
15:01:20 [Zakim]: +??P9
15:01:23 [Zakim]: -Francois
15:01:25 [Zakim]: +Francois
15:01:27 [tomhume]: zakim, p9 is me
15:01:27 [Zakim]: sorry, tomhume, I do not recognize a party named 'p9'
15:01:34 [tomhume]: zakim, +??P9 is me
15:01:34 [Zakim]: sorry, tomhume, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9'
15:01:45 [jo]: zakim, code?
15:01:47 [francois]: zakim, ??P9 is tomhume
15:01:48 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
15:01:53 [Zakim]: +tomhume; got it
15:02:33 [Zakim]: + +1.630.414.aaaa
15:02:43 [SeanP]: Zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:50 [Zakim]: +SeanP; got it
15:02:57 [Zakim]: +jo
15:03:21 [rob]: rob has joined #bpwg
15:03:40 [Zakim]: + +0207287aabb
15:03:50 [rob]: aabb is me
15:03:58 [rob]: Zakim, aabb is me
15:04:04 [Zakim]: +rob; got it
15:04:36 [jo]: scribe: Jo
15:04:59 [jo]: Topic: Where we are
15:05:24 [jo]: fd: we spent a whole day on CT during the F2F which was really useful
15:05:50 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-bpwg-minutes.html F2F day 1 on CT
15:06:19 [jo]: fd: took quite a few resolutions. Any questions on that?
15:07:25 [jo]: ... addressing the LC comments showed that there was some kind of misunderstanding between what people think the spec is about and what it actually is about, so we need to focus more on what be enforced or made normative
15:07:40 [jo]: ... if we can end up with a small text then we will have done our job
15:07:45 [jo]: ... OK?
15:07:47 [jo]: q+
15:07:52 [francois]: ack jo
15:08:36 [SeanP]: q+
15:09:01 [jo]: jo: well some of the non normative things add value, but in general "I don't disagree (TM)"
15:09:20 [francois]: ack SeanP
15:09:53 [jo]: seanp: I thought that we were going to have normative and informative parts, rather than trying to reduce it to just being normative
15:10:32 [jo]: fd: yes, well that's basically what I mean, but we shouldn't mix normative and informative parts
15:10:47 [jo]: ... we should be as clear as possible
15:10:55 [jo]: ... by having a clean structure
15:11:19 [jo]: fd: next step is for Jo to slave away night and day to update the document
15:11:58 [jo]: ... need to look at comments where we resolved "no" as the others will basically be a reference to the updated draft
15:12:19 [jo]: ... I sent something out on this assigning people to comments to draft the responses
15:12:23 [SeanP]: q+
15:12:31 [francois]: ack SeanP
15:12:41 [jo]: seanp: should we update in tracker or send to the list
15:12:52 [jo]: fd: update the tracker, if you are OK with that
15:12:54 [jo]: q+
15:13:08 [jo]: q+ to ask if Tom has access to LC Tracker?
15:13:10 [francois]: ack jo
15:13:10 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to ask if Tom has access to LC Tracker?
15:13:12 [jo]: ack me
15:13:28 [jo]: fd: then update the mailing list when you have done that
15:13:29 [Bryan]: Bryan has joined #bpwg
15:13:37 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ Last Call tracker
15:14:04 [tomhume]: "yes!"
15:14:08 [Bryan]: Hi, FYI I am here but chat-only today
15:14:52 [jo]: fd: technically this is easier but must not forget working in public
15:15:36 [jo]: fd: some comments on 4.1.5 were not actually talking about the things we agreed on, and so I've listed the remaining LC comments as the agenda for today
15:15:45 [jo]: topic: LC-2038
15:15:56 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038 LC-2038
15:17:09 [jo]: q+
15:17:12 [francois]: ack jo
15:18:24 [jo]: jo: no this is not recommended, it's all MAY
15:18:34 [SeanP]: q+
15:19:08 [jo]: seanp: I don't think we need to change anything, it says what we mean, we don't claim this to be best practice?
15:19:36 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2038, resolve partial. Answer "no, these are not best practices, but guidelines"
15:19:57 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2038, resolve partial. Answer "no, these are not best practices, but guidelines". Don't change the text.
15:20:11 [SeanP]: +1
15:20:24 [tomhume]: +1
15:20:27 [rob]: +1
15:20:45 [Zakim]: +??P32
15:20:51 [Zakim]: -jo
15:20:59 [jo]: zakim, ??P32 is me
15:20:59 [Zakim]: +jo; got it
15:21:31 [francois]: +1
15:21:44 [jo]: RESOLUTION: ref LC-2038, resolve partial. Answer "no, these are not best practices, but guidelines". Don't change the text.
15:21:55 [jo]: Topic: LC-2049
15:22:10 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049 LC-2049
15:23:12 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2049 resolve no, URI patterns can never be more than a heuristic
15:23:43 [SeanP]: +1
15:25:48 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2049 resolve no, URI patterns can never be more than a heuristic, but we will move the list of examples to a non normative appendix
15:25:55 [rob]: +1
15:26:30 [rob]: q+
15:26:48 [SeanP]: ack me
15:27:04 [francois]: ack rob
15:27:48 [jo]: rob: as jo just says, you may get moved around between URIs so it's not so much what you do with the request it's more what you do with the response
15:28:01 [francois]: +1
15:28:08 [SeanP]: +1
15:28:12 [tomhume]: +1
15:28:13 [jo]: ... less to do with what you do with the UA on the request path
15:28:29 [jo]: RESOLUTION: ref LC-2049 resolve no, URI patterns can never be more than a heuristic, but we will move the list of examples to a non normative appendix
15:30:09 [jo]: fd: notes that the contributor of these comments has been invited to join the group as an invited expert, because of the value of his contributions, and he has now agreed but the process of his joining has not yeat completed
15:30:15 [jo]: s/yeat/yet/
15:30:57 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 LC-2053
15:32:00 [dom]: [his invitation is at the last step, now, fwiw]
15:32:06 [jo]: q+ to suggest that for the same reason as the previous one, the intention of content can't be unambiguously inferred from a URI
15:32:16 [francois]: ack jo
15:32:16 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to suggest that for the same reason as the previous one, the intention of content can't be unambiguously inferred from a URI
15:33:31 [jo]: ack me
15:33:55 [jo]: jo: suggest that we don't fully understand this and wait for Eduardo to be on a call so we can ask what he means
15:34:11 [jo]: Topic: LC-2072
15:34:15 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072 LC-2072
15:34:31 [jo]: fd: what is a restructured desktop experience?
15:35:06 [SeanP]: q+
15:35:21 [francois]: ack SeanP
15:35:35 [jo]: jo: well we don't mean that it's a desktop that has a chain saw taken to it
15:36:00 [jo]: seanp: I think the problem is that we define this after where this reference is
15:37:37 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2072, resolve yes, and insert a termref to restructured and an Xref to 4.1.5.3
15:37:55 [francois]: +1
15:38:12 [SeanP]: +1
15:38:29 [jo]: RESOLUTION: ref LC-2072, resolve yes, and insert a termref to restructured and an Xref to 4.1.5.3
15:38:45 [jo]: Topic: LC-2073
15:38:49 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073 LC-2073
15:39:43 [jo]: fd: MNott is asking us to provide the undefined heuristics which we don't want to do
15:40:57 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2072, resolve no, we are not aware of any recommended heuristics, but understand that CT Proxy vendors will need to adopt heuristics of some kind so we have no choice but to leave it open
15:41:33 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2072, resolve no, we are not aware of any satisfactory heuristics, but understand that CT Proxy vendors will need to adopt heuristics of some kind so we have no choice but to leave it open
15:41:43 [jo]: +1
15:41:43 [tomhume]: +1
15:41:44 [francois]: +1
15:41:45 [SeanP]: +1
15:42:01 [jo]: RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2073, resolve no, we are not aware of any satisfactory heuristics, but understand that CT Proxy vendors will need to adopt heuristics of some kind so we have no choice but to leave it open
15:42:17 [jo]: Topic: LC-2040
15:42:21 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040 LC-2040
15:45:34 [jo]: jo: I think it's right to say that if we say MUST then maybe its right to say we are changing the protocol, so if we say should instead then that would be OK, given that our conformance statement requirements are that you have to say why you don't conform to a SHOULD if you dont
15:45:42 [SeanP]: q+
15:45:50 [jo]: francois: echoes what jo just said
15:46:15 [jo]: ack s
15:46:17 [francois]: ack SeanP
15:46:40 [jo]: seanp: I thought we already checked with the IETF and they said it would take a long time and it wasn't really worth doing
15:46:55 [jo]: fd: that was about extensions to Cache-Control
15:47:38 [jo]: ... this is a bit different in that we are allowed to add headers with X- but putting a MUST here is defining an extension of the protocol
15:47:45 [jo]: q+
15:47:58 [francois]: ack jo
15:48:26 [jo]: ... but equally I think that if we take the MUST out then we will be criticised by the other side
15:48:54 [jo]: ACTION: daoust to ask [someone] about adding IETF headers
15:48:54 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-879 - Ask [someone] about adding IETF headers [on François Daoust - due 2008-11-11].
15:49:33 [jo]: jo: doesn't have to be in a standard to be best practice
15:49:41 [jo]: fd: er, humm, doh, er
15:49:49 [SeanP]: It's a "de facto" guideline
15:51:10 [jo]: fd: there is one other pending best practice, plus we can postpone discussion of issues raised by eduardo, till he joins the group
15:51:45 [jo]: topic: next week's call
15:52:02 [jo]: [discussion of Remembrance day celebrations]
15:52:08 [jo]: [call will go ahead]
15:52:33 [jo]: topic: Discussions on WMLProgramming
15:52:48 [jo]: tom: a) legal advice, dealt with
15:52:48 [francois]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0000.html Tom's collection of comments
15:53:18 [jo]: ... b) ROBOTS.TXT like thing, seems to be dealt with by POWDER but Eduardo had comments on that
15:53:43 [jo]: ... c) the Via header, requiring the presence of the URI
15:53:56 [jo]: ... d) SOAP etc. dealt with under 4.13
15:54:12 [jo]: ... e) non-ability of people to alter headers
15:54:25 [jo]: ... mark content as Mobile using DOCTYPE
15:54:37 [jo]: ... not exactly fool proof
15:54:39 [jo]: q+
15:54:54 [jo]: fd: is there anything we should reconsider
15:55:21 [jo]: tom: would be good to understand more about POWDER
15:55:23 [francois]: ack jo
15:56:05 [jo]: jo: didn't we say that you can use META HTTP-EQUIV cache-control: no-transform
15:56:20 [jo]: fd: well yes we did
15:56:25 [SeanP]: q+
15:56:31 [jo]: ack seanp
15:57:05 [jo]: seanp: there was a resolution that the HTTP equiv should be consulted if the relevant HTTP header not present
15:57:16 [jo]: fd: so back to POWDER
15:57:44 [jo]: ... it's a "bit of a semantic thing" which inter alia replaces the good ole ROBOTS
15:58:15 [jo]: ... in the past we thought that it could be used for Content Providers use it to advertise their position on CT
15:58:59 [jo]: ... but POWDER doesn't exist yet and also we'd need to define a vocabulary and that would be hard, take a lot of time and be out of scope
15:59:29 [jo]: ... but we have put it in the Scope for Future Work appendix
16:00:00 [jo]: ... and it would be "cool", also could be a way of CT proxies advertising their capabilities to Content Providers
16:00:05 [tomhume]: q+
16:00:09 [jo]: ack t
16:00:11 [francois]: ack tomhume
16:00:55 [jo]: tom: so our position is that it's not feasible now, but will be feasible in the future once POWDER is defined and we have a voacb
16:01:19 [jo]: fd: yes, that's basically it, a vocabulary needs to be defined though
16:01:50 [jo]: ... seems like a Well Known Location is not considered good practice
16:02:07 [jo]: tom: can we kick off work on a vocab?
16:02:41 [jo]: fd: the semantics can be worked on independently of the syntax of POWDER being agreed
16:02:58 [jo]: ... so someone somewhere can start work on this
16:03:36 [jo]: ... but it is not all that easy to define just a simple vocab e.g. the DDR Core Vocab
16:04:21 [Zakim]: -Francois
16:04:25 [jo]: [adjourned]
16:04:28 [Zakim]: -rob
16:04:28 [Zakim]: -tomhume
16:04:30 [Zakim]: -SeanP
16:04:39 [Zakim]: -jo
16:04:41 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended
16:04:42 [Zakim]: Attendees were Francois, tomhume, +1.630.414.aaaa, SeanP, jo, +0207287aabb, rob
16:05:03 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:05:03 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:07:45 [rob]: rob has left #bpwg
17:27:15 [francois]: RRSAgent, bye
17:27:15 [RRSAgent]: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-actions.rdf :
17:27:15 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: daoust to ask [someone] about adding IETF headers [1]
17:27:15 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-bpwg-irc#T15-48-54
17:27:19 [francois]: Zakim, bye
17:27:19 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #bpwg