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