14:54:53 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 14:54:53 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-bpwg-irc 14:54:55 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:54:55 Zakim has joined #bpwg 14:54:57 Zakim, this will be BPWG 14:54:57 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 14:54:58 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 14:54:58 Date: 25 November 2008 14:56:44 Chair: francois 14:56:49 Regrets: rob 14:58:04 francois: I was planning to offer to scribe, are you about to run me through what's required briefly before we start? 14:58:59 MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started 14:59:06 +??P7 14:59:11 zakim, ??P7 is me 14:59:11 +tomhume; got it 15:00:54 +Bryan_Sullivan 15:00:58 -tomhume 15:01:02 +tomhume 15:01:22 +Eduardo 15:01:31 Bryan has joined #bpwg 15:02:04 + +95169aaaa 15:02:10 zakim, aaaa is me 15:02:10 +francois; got it 15:02:59 SeanP has joined #bpwg 15:03:24 Scribenick: tomhume 15:03:29 Scribe: Tom 15:03:47 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0077.html 15:03:54 +SeanP 15:04:40 EdC has joined #bpwg 15:04:44 jo has joined #bpwg 15:06:28 test. do you receive this? EdC 15:07:03 + +7.899.72.aabb 15:07:55 zakim, aabb is Andrew 15:07:55 +Andrew; got it 15:08:55 andrews has joined #bpwg 15:09:30 zakim, who makes noise? 15:09:30 I don't understand your question, francois. 15:09:34 zakim, who is making noise? 15:09:45 francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: tomhume (29%) 15:10:14 Topic: User experience 15:10:31 zakim, code? 15:10:31 the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 15:10:53 francois: following discussion on-list, Eduardo proposed an algorithm to define "improving the user experience", which is tough to define 15:11:16 francois: to me this is out of scope as we've decided not to describe the internal operations of proxies 15:11:24 + +03531522aacc 15:11:33 zakim, aacc is me 15:11:33 +jo; got it 15:12:19 eduardo: agree to leave the algorithm out of scope 15:12:30 Topic: W3C mobile addressing standards 15:12:37 ISSUE-284? 15:12:38 ISSUE-284 -- W3C mobile addressing standards -- RAISED 15:12:38 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/284 15:13:27 francois: jo raised this issue after the Verizon statement, where they claimed to follow the CT guidelines but advised URI patterns which CT lists as examples 15:14:12 francois: the interpretation was also that desktop user-agents should be substituted by default. This is contrary to the guidelines we're writing. 15:14:38 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add some text in 4.1.5 to state that inferring that a desktop User-Agent is needed in the absence of any indication (e.g. URI patterns) is contrary to the guidelines 15:14:47 q+ 15:14:54 ack SeanP 15:15:17 SeanP: Verizon are working on changing this document. 15:17:29 jo: we're starting to put things in because we've seen them in the wild, which is risky 15:17:47 +1 15:17:57 +1 15:18:00 +1 15:18:02 +1 15:18:19 RESOLUTION: Add some text in 4.1.5 to state that inferring that a desktop User-Agent is needed in the absence of any indication (e.g. URI patterns) is contrary to the guidelines 15:18:45 Topic: Capability negotiation on the client side 15:19:20 jo: would like a resolution on the subject of reinforcing the text in the Heuristics appendix to say "these are just heuristics" 15:19:44 francois: feels the guidelines are clear, but could be emphasised some more 15:20:06 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Beef up text on Heuristics to say that they are *not* endorsed and are not even recommended as good practice 15:20:14 +1 15:20:15 +1 15:20:27 +1 15:21:02 Eduardo(?): wonders why they're not recommended as best practice 15:21:15 jo: if we say "it's good practice to use these" we're endorsing them. 15:21:21 s/(?)// 15:21:59 jo: we're saying "this is not advice of best practice, just an observation of what people do" 15:22:57 jo: Verizon said "these are the W3C endorsed mobile addressing patterns", but we don't endorse them. 15:23:30 jo: I wouldn't want us to say "it's good practice to use x.domainname or domainname/x", but it's worth our saying "if you're building a CT proxy, these are the things people typically look out for" 15:23:46 jo: it's unsound to recommend people parse site entry points in any way, it's worth noting that people do do that. 15:24:26 q+ 15:24:32 q+ 15:25:08 jo: you should send unaltered headers in the first instance 15:25:30 jo: the pattern of the name should inform you re your decision to do this 15:26:06 Eduardo: wasn't the Verizon thing taking the counterposition of the guidelines? 15:26:37 ack SeanP 15:27:08 SeanP: I'd like to amend the proposed resolution to say they're not endorsed, but also say "you can't deduce that a site isn't mobile by looking at these patterns" 15:27:32 ack Bryan 15:28:19 Bryan: you can't reliably deduce... but the issue of using specific url/domain-naming conventions is that it's a practice that isn't considered "best practice" but has support. 15:28:20 q+ 15:28:52 ... unless it's driven by W3C/IETF recommendation, we're in danger of creating technology. e.g. some older browsers used WSP instead of HTTP, and it was dropped after a lot of pain 15:29:05 ack EdC 15:29:08 ... we should avoid similar situations by implying that this is a proposed technology approach 15:29:40 Eduardo: saying that some of these practices aren't good practices will have to be checked. e.g. .mobi domain *is* good practice to recognise a mobile site 15:30:31 francois: jo, could you suggest some text on the mailing list? 15:30:45 ACTION: Jo to propose beefed up text on heuristics in respect of practice vs good practice 15:30:46 Created ACTION-886 - Propose beefed up text on heuristics in respect of practice vs good practice [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-12-02]. 15:31:40 q+ 15:31:53 q+ 15:32:08 ack jo 15:32:12 francois: we mentioned POWDER as a possibility to let servers communicate with CT proxies. From the clients POV we don't have such a reference, CC/PP could be used a bit more in future. We could refer to this in "scope for future work". 15:32:37 jo: CC/PP should be retired in a dignified fashion 15:32:39 ack Bryan 15:32:42 JonathanJ has joined #bpwg 15:33:24 bryan: we should look forward to new technology to solve this problem. The OMA (?) group is defining an ontology for device capabilities. Should see something coming to the market in the next year or two. 15:34:21 bryan: (that's the OMA mobile client environment MCE group) 15:34:29 s/(?)/Mobile Client Environment MCE 15:34:34 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: do not reference CC/PP in Scope for Future Work as a possible future way to communicate between a mobile device and a CT-proxy because it probably won't be used as such. 15:34:52 +1 15:34:52 +1 15:34:54 +1 15:35:00 +1 15:35:02 RESOLUTION: do not reference CC/PP in Scope for Future Work as a possible future way to communicate between a mobile device and a CT-proxy because it probably won't be used as such. 15:35:23 Topic: "Dry" statements for Alteration of Response and LC-2053 on Classes of Devices (4.2.8.1) 15:35:54 francois: conclusion of the discussion from the mailing list was that all normative statements must be testable. We must avoid wishful thinking or unclear statements. 15:36:16 francois: two statements in particular aren't testable, both in 4.2.8.1 15:36:21 ->http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-alteration-of-response section 4.2.8.1 15:37:14 francois: we have 2 statements saying a proxy must do its best not to break content, and only adapt to make things better for user agents 15:37:18 +q 15:37:50 francois: how can we reword this along the lines of the Best Practice we have on exploiting device capabilities, or do we need something else? 15:38:02 ack EdC 15:38:36 Eduardo: The first paragraph in 4.2.8.1 is questionable on 2 grounds: it's not testable, and it introduces a restriction in setting the scope for what kind of transformations are allowed 15:38:47 q+ 15:39:01 ... there are transformations to match the capabilities of the network, not just the handset (e.g. to encode/decode content). This statement prohibits that kind of application. 15:39:17 francois: doesn't think we want to be this rigid 15:39:55 ack Bryan 15:39:55 Eduardo: there is a document about MWBP, if there should be something stated it should be to that document (perhaps w/chapter references), not as a normative statement but as an indication 15:39:56 q+ to agree with the point that these are poor as they stand, and to suggest that someone drafts some proposed text for these bits 15:40:53 bryan: this is similar to earlier statements we had re the scope of the document. When this doc restricts what a CT proxy can do, it should be explicit that this is only within the scope of what a CT proxy is intended for (translating for purposes of usability), and not for e.g. reducing load of network, which should be outside the scope of these guidelines. 15:41:11 ... these statements are OK but shouldn't imply a restriction on the same system that's doing CT for other purposes. 15:41:12 ack jo 15:41:12 jo, you wanted to agree with the point that these are poor as they stand, and to suggest that someone drafts some proposed text for these bits 15:41:28 q+ 15:41:56 jo: happy to adopt that text, but think reformatting images *is* within scope for this doc. 15:41:59 ack SeanP 15:42:00 +q 15:42:30 SeanP: agree this should be non-normative, but not sure referring to BP is much better. "Exploit device capabilities" isn't any more testable than what we have here. 15:42:48 jo: how about striking these sections altogether? 15:43:07 ack EdC 15:43:17 jo: this is leaning towards talking about proxy internals. proxy vendors should be free to make a lousy product. 15:44:01 eduardo: introduction of guidelines talk about improving user experience. There could be an indication in an appendix to BP as an information reference. 15:45:21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Strike first paragraph in section 4.2.8.1 on transformations carried out by CT proxies as it refers to what CT-proxies do (stated in the introduction) and does not have any normative meaning. 15:45:59 +1 15:46:02 jo: we've had comment that the bits that matter here (points 1/2/3) get lost in the body 15:46:05 +1 15:46:10 +1 15:46:11 +1 15:46:12 +1 15:46:32 RESOLUTION: Strike first paragraph in section 4.2.8.1 on transformations carried out by CT proxies as it refers to what CT-proxies do (stated in the introduction) and does not have any normative meaning. 15:46:33 +1 15:46:41 +1 15:46:50 francois: appendix already contains reference to BP 15:47:03 +q 15:47:28 ack EdC 15:48:11 ACTION: Jo to put a reference somewhere to the Best Practice about exploiting device capabilities 15:48:11 Created ACTION-887 - Put a reference somewhere to the Best Practice about exploiting device capabilities [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-12-02]. 15:48:25 ACTION: Jo to be lucky :-) 15:48:25 Created ACTION-888 - Be lucky :-) [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-12-02]. 15:49:27 francois: eduardo, you'd like it to apply to 4.2.8 in the list of heuristics 15:49:45 francois: one of the heuristics would be that the proxy would examine the user-agent 15:50:18 francois: this goes with features like zoom capability 15:50:19 "the user agent has linearization or zoom capabilities or other features which allow it to present the content unaltered" 15:51:16 eduardo: it's actually not general enough. you might have desktop-capable user agents on a mobile device without linearization, but that's still able to access content from a web server. So you can keep that bullet-point, but there are other properties of user agents which you have to take into account to deal properly with the decision to transform. 15:51:34 jo: what do we need over and above the phrase "other features"? 15:52:47 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Reword "the user agent has linearization or zoom capabilities or other features which allow it to present the content unaltered" "the user agent has features such as linearization or zoom that allow it to present the content unaltered" 15:53:43 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Reword "the user agent has linearization or zoom capabilities or other features which allow it to present the content unaltered" as "the user agent has features (such as linearization or zoom) that allow it to present the content unaltered" 15:54:20 francois: perhaps "the user agent as identified by some evidence in the http request"? 15:54:37 eduardo: didn't someone say evidence is a terminology in some other group? 15:54:44 francois: used by the DDR Simple API 15:55:29 jo: we don't care how the user agent is determined 15:55:49 RESOLUTION: Reword "the user agent has linearization or zoom capabilities or other features which allow it to present the content unaltered" as "the user agent has features (such as linearization or zoom) that allow it to present the content unaltered" 15:55:58 Close ACTION-880 15:55:58 ACTION-880 Review LC-2053 and clarify to group closed 15:56:26 Topic: LC-2023 - note instead of alteration of the list (4.2.8.1) 15:56:46 francois: in 4.2.8.1 Jo inserted a note instead of what had been agreed. Are we fine with the note? 15:57:11 jo: the note should be moved to the top of the section 15:57:36 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Move the note under 4.2.8.1 to the start of the section 15:57:51 +1 15:57:59 RESOLUTION: Move the note under 4.2.8.1 to the start of the section 15:58:01 ACTION-881? 15:58:01 ACTION-881 -- Jo Rabin to enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc. -- due 2008-11-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:58:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/881 15:58:11 Close ACTION-881 15:58:11 ACTION-881 Enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc. closed 15:58:20 Topic: Validation against formal published grammar (4.2.8.1) 15:59:10 francois: for the time being, it says SHOULD validate. Discussion on the mailing list is that we could split this into 2 guidelines: content MUST be well formed (if it's XML), the second being that it SHOULD validate to a formal grammar. 15:59:20 are there other formal notions of well-formedness than just for XML? 15:59:23 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. Validation against formal published grammar, two guidelines "The altered content MUST be well-formed (if it's XML-based)" and "The altered content SHOULD validate to an appropriate published formal grammar" 15:59:30 francois: if we split into 2 guidelines, will it be misunderstood? 15:59:35 q+ to say that it is probably clearer as it is 15:59:40 ack jo 15:59:40 jo, you wanted to say that it is probably clearer as it is 15:59:58 jo: it already echoes the language of the BP doc, I'd rather leave as is 16:00:59 jo: the doc says it SHOULD validate according to a published formal grammar. If there's no published formal grammar for the content type, this can't be complied with (hence this being a SHOULD) and there are reasons not to comply with formal grammars even when you can (hence SHOULD) 16:01:17 jo: ponders what virtue there is to well-formedness 16:01:48 eduardo: if we ask for well-formedness we're stating a minimum 16:02:07 +q 16:02:08 jo: it should still only be a SHOULD; there are cases where well-formedness works less well than non-well-formed on some devices 16:02:14 ack EdC 16:02:36 eduardo: is there an example where non-well-formedness is an example? we couldn't see one. 16:02:54 q+ 16:02:59 eduardo: there are examples where you want to restrict the whole set of well-formed documents to a smaller set, because of browsers being particular. But these are still well-formed documents. 16:03:10 ack SeanP 16:03:46 SeanP: if we put in a statement about well-formedness, what does it buy us here? Proxies aren't going to create non-well-formed if browsers can't handle them ("don't put in bugs") so why do we need this? 16:03:49 +q 16:03:54 ack EdC 16:04:20 eduardo: if best practice is not to put in bugs, well-formedness is the way not to put in bugs. 16:05:18 francois: I share Sean and Jo's POV, that there isn't enough added value to say "content must be well formed" given that there could be an example where this isn't required. What value does having two statements instead of one add? 16:05:45 -1 to well formed 16:05:55 +1 to wf 16:05:59 0 to well formed 16:06:01 -1 16:06:03 0 16:06:07 0 16:06:14 -1 to well formed, but I don't care that much 16:06:42 francois: let's think about this and return to it next week 16:07:20 -Bryan_Sullivan 16:07:21 -jo 16:07:23 -SeanP 16:07:25 -Eduardo 16:07:26 -Andrew 16:07:26 -tomhume 16:07:27 -francois 16:07:27 MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended 16:07:28 Attendees were tomhume, Bryan_Sullivan, Eduardo, +95169aaaa, francois, SeanP, +7.899.72.aabb, Andrew, +03531522aacc, jo 16:09:46 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:09:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:43:56 JonathanJ has joined #bpwg 17:03:14 RRSAgent, bye 17:03:14 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-bpwg-actions.rdf : 17:03:14 ACTION: Jo to propose beefed up text on heuristics in respect of practice vs good practice [1] 17:03:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-bpwg-irc#T15-30-45 17:03:14 ACTION: Jo to put a reference somewhere to the Best Practice about exploiting device capabilities [2] 17:03:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-bpwg-irc#T15-48-11 17:03:14 ACTION: Jo to be lucky :-) [3] 17:03:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-bpwg-irc#T15-48-25 17:03:19 Zakim, bye 17:03:19 Zakim has left #bpwg