IRC log of bpwg on 2008-12-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:59 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:56:59 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-irc
14:57:01 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:01 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:57:03 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:57:04 [trackbot]: Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:57:04 [trackbot]: Date: 02 December 2008
14:57:04 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:07 [francois]: Chair: francois
14:57:28 [francois]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Dec/0013.html
14:58:39 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started
14:58:40 [Zakim]: +??P9
14:58:47 [tomhume]: zakim, ??P9 is me
14:58:47 [Zakim]: +tomhume; got it
14:59:34 [rob]: rob has joined #bpwg
15:01:05 [Zakim]: +rob
15:01:08 [Zakim]: -rob
15:01:14 [Zakim]: +rob
15:01:50 [Zakim]: +Francois
15:03:53 [EdC]: EdC has joined #bpwg
15:04:42 [Zakim]: +Eduardo
15:05:37 [francois]: Scribe: Tom
15:05:39 [jo]: jo has joined #bpwg
15:05:41 [francois]: ScribeNick: tomhume
15:05:56 [tomhume]: Topic: Test the effect of HEAD Requests on Various Servers
15:06:40 [tomhume]: francois: we were wondering whether our advice to convert HEAD to GET might produce real problems
15:07:26 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No identified problem associated with switching a HEAD request to a GET request, other than the fact that server statistics are impacted. No text change in 4.1.1 on that regard.
15:07:34 [tomhume]: ... did tests to ensure that when one sends a HEAD to a CGI/JSP/etc page, then the code gets executed as if it were a GET - which makes sense IMHO because server needs to know Content-Length of response it will return, and therefore needs to run any code to produce this
15:07:39 [EdC]: +1
15:07:39 [rob]: +1
15:07:40 [tomhume]: +1
15:07:45 [tomhume]: RESOLUTION: No identified problem associated with switching a HEAD request to a GET request, other than the fact that server statistics are impacted. No text change in 4.1.1 on that regard.
15:07:48 [francois]: ACTION-710?
15:07:48 [trackbot]: ACTION-710 -- François Daoust to test the Effect of HEAD Requests on Various Servers -- due 2008-07-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:07:48 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/710
15:07:54 [francois]: close ACTION-710
15:07:54 [trackbot]: ACTION-710 Test the Effect of HEAD Requests on Various Servers closed
15:08:02 [tomhume]: Topic: LC-2097 - Review of OPES work
15:08:23 [francois]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0045.html Jo's review of OPES work
15:08:28 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref-2097 resolve yes and add a section under 1.3 scope noting that OPES RFC 3238 is relevant to this work and has been reviewed.
15:08:31 [EdC]: +q
15:08:37 [tomhume]: francoise: review triggered by LC comment from the IAB. Jo couldn't identify any problem.
15:08:38 [francois]: ack EdC
15:08:46 [tomhume]: edC: if OPES is relevant, what's its impact?
15:09:30 [tomhume]: francois: OPES is an offshoot of RFC. It describes high-level non-transparent proxies and services. Transcoding could be described as an OPES service.
15:09:51 [tomhume]: ... it doesn't have any strong binding to what we're doing now.
15:10:44 [tomhume]: ... the IAB sent us a LC comment saying it looks like OPES. It's a set of guidelines to be followed by non-transparent proxies, to be respectful of the environment.
15:11:04 [tomhume]: ... purpose of Jo's review was to determine whether these had any impact on CTG.
15:11:39 [EdC]: +1
15:11:41 [tomhume]: +1
15:11:43 [rob]: +1
15:11:43 [francois]: +1
15:11:57 [tomhume]: RESOLUTION: Ref-2097 resolve yes and add a section under 1.3 scope noting that OPES RFC 3238 is relevant to this work and has been reviewed.
15:12:08 [tomhume]: Topic: Editorial comments from Eduardo
15:12:36 [tomhume]: francois: Most of these are editorial comments not requiring discussion, suggest we action Jo to do them in his absence
15:13:11 [EdC]: +1
15:13:16 [tomhume]: +1 to anything that keeps Jo busy
15:13:26 [francois]: ACTION: Jo to take the editorial comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html into account for next version of the draft
15:13:26 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-889 - Take the editorial comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html into account for next version of the draft [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-12-09].
15:13:37 [tomhume]: Topic: LC-2050 - Restructuring, recoding, optimizing
15:14:14 [tomhume]: francois: we had resolved we would keep the definition, even though they're vague, and that we'll say that we're only talking about restructuring.
15:14:38 [tomhume]: ... whilst preparing the new draft, Jo said it didn't make sense any more. I tend to agree with him in that we're not doing much with these definitions right now
15:14:49 [tomhume]: ... but we're not restricting ourselves to restructuring in the guidelines
15:15:42 [tomhume]: edC: to be very logical, if those differences aren't meaningful in the document, they shouldn't be set as definitions. We should just give examples in the intro.
15:15:57 [tomhume]: francois: we use the terms restructuring and recoding are used in the "decision to transform" section.
15:16:33 [tomhume]: ... if they're not used, we don't need to list them as definitions. But they still make sense in an introductory section.
15:16:56 [tomhume]: ... what Jo referred to here was the resolution we took saying we would only refer to restructuring does not make sense.
15:17:15 [tomhume]: ... suggest we leave things as they are now and come back to this later.
15:18:54 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref. definitions of restructuring, recoding, optimizing, leave things as they stand and get back to it in the end. If the definitions are not used in the guidelines, then lessen the wording (not need to use "definitions" if we don't make use of the term)
15:19:22 [rob]: +1
15:19:23 [tomhume]: +1
15:19:23 [EdC]: +1
15:19:33 [francois]: +1
15:19:45 [tomhume]: RESOLUTION: ref. definitions of restructuring, recoding, optimizing, leave things as they stand and get back to it in the end. If the definitions are not used in the guidelines, then lessen the wording (not need to use "definitions" if we don't make use of the term)
15:19:48 [francois]: ACTION-832?
15:19:48 [trackbot]: ACTION-832 -- Sean Patterson to look at what the impact on the document would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050 -- due 2008-09-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:19:48 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/832
15:19:55 [francois]: Close ACTION-832
15:19:56 [trackbot]: ACTION-832 Look at what the impact on the document would be if we removed the definitions referred to in LC-2050 closed
15:20:03 [tomhume]: Topic: Cached responses and pagination
15:20:58 [francois]: "SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy"
15:21:26 [tomhume]: rob: if we respect the cache-control: no-cache (or revalidate, or whatever) that happens when you do a refresh from the handset menu, there's no need to do anything specific re what you put on the screen
15:22:06 [tomhume]: francois: is this not the case where a CT proxy paginates the response and sends the paginated response to the user, and the user clicks next a couple of times. In this case the interaction with the proxy doesn't normally go back to the origin server
15:22:25 [tomhume]: ... if the response has expired the proxy should tell the user and provide a means to retrieve a fresh copy of the resource, to see if it has changed.
15:22:41 [tomhume]: ... It was a feature considered "at risk", that didn't receive a lot of comments.
15:23:09 [EdC]: +q
15:23:12 [tomhume]: ... If it's a blog, for instance, and the response is paginated it will be confusing to tell the user "there may be a new version available, but maybe not".
15:23:38 [tomhume]: ... so the question is, there is a SHOULD. Is there any reason why it's not a MUST?
15:23:39 [francois]: ack EdC
15:24:07 [tomhume]: EdC: has the issue of why the caching properties associated within the originating content don't propagate to the fragments been discussed?
15:24:35 [tomhume]: francois: if you start paginating the response and you send the first page to the user, he'll click on NEXT and the proxy will have to refetch the newest version of the page.
15:24:50 [tomhume]: ... if the message changes in the meantime, what's the CT proxy to serve?
15:25:00 [tomhume]: ... should it return to p1 or p2 in a new version
15:25:31 [tomhume]: rob: the origin server should probably only see 1 request for a page
15:26:02 [tomhume]: francois: we have this section remaining because it goes against caching directives.
15:26:11 [tomhume]: ... this is why we have the second part of the guideliens
15:26:38 [tomhume]: ... from a UE POV this doesn't make sense, from a technological POV it does
15:27:37 [tomhume]: EdC: until we see a reason for this not to be the case, should it not be a MUST?
15:27:54 [tomhume]: rob: this would be on lots of pages where large pieces of content are split, as many web sites send no caching directives, so you have to assume content is stale.
15:28:06 [tomhume]: francois: this is why I don't think the guideline is useful at all.
15:28:30 [tomhume]: rob: if the effect is that nearly every page contains the warning "this page may be out of date"...
15:29:08 [tomhume]: francois: I think the notification saying "this page may be out of date" would be a bit of a burden on every page.
15:29:18 [tomhume]: ... one could still have a link to refresh the view.
15:29:44 [tomhume]: rob: The latter doesn't need to be a link on the page, as long as cache-control: must-revalidate is observed then there is a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy.
15:30:44 [tomhume]: ... clicking on NEXT page for example, would serve me a second page of the page I got a couple of minutes ago. You can guide the user to refresh from the handset.
15:31:01 [tomhume]: ... in which case the handset can send a new header it wouldn't normally send, inviting the proxy to update the page.
15:31:15 [tomhume]: francois: that's a bit of a "power user" feature... is it a "simple means"?
15:31:43 [EdC]: The idea of (whomever spoke) is that the exact refresh may vary and does not need to be specified in the CTG.
15:31:56 [tomhume]: francois: don't feel strongly one way or the other
15:32:14 [tomhume]: rob: me neither, but if we're only talking about the second SHOULD then, this SHOULD should be a MUST
15:33:03 [tomhume]: rob: the other part of Eduardo's message was that paginating responses isn't clear. Is it the first time it's mentioned?
15:33:27 [tomhume]: edC: it's only mentioned in the two types of transformation.
15:33:36 [tomhume]: edC: a short sentence to clarify would be nice.
15:34:06 [tomhume]: rob: needs to leave, happy to have second SHOULD replaced by MUST
15:34:08 [Zakim]: -rob
15:34:17 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add a short sentence on "pagination" first time it is mentioned to clarify what we mean
15:34:21 [tomhume]: +1
15:34:34 [EdC]: +1
15:34:35 [francois]: +1
15:34:40 [tomhume]: RESOLUTION: Add a short sentence on "pagination" first time it is mentioned to clarify what we mean
15:35:09 [francois]: ACTION: Eduardo to provide a short definition of "pagination".
15:35:09 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-890 - Provide a short definition of \"pagination\". [on Eduardo Casais - due 2008-12-09].
15:35:20 [EdC]: +1
15:35:24 [tomhume]: +1
15:35:24 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: replace SHOULD by MUST in "and [proxies] SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy"
15:35:29 [rob]: +1
15:35:31 [francois]: +1
15:36:13 [tomhume]: francois: does the use case Rob mentioned (clicking refresh in the menu) fit the definition of "something provided by the proxy"?
15:36:34 [tomhume]: ... is this a question of its respecting the simple means provided by the browser.
15:37:01 [tomhume]: yes
15:37:40 [tomhume]: edC: Rob said that "the simple means" is "the user clicking a refresh on their browser triggers the proxy to refetch the content"
15:37:43 [tomhume]: francois: yes
15:37:56 [tomhume]: ... does the guideline embrace this case? I think so
15:38:14 [EdC]: +1
15:38:18 [tomhume]: +1
15:38:22 [francois]: +1
15:38:22 [tomhume]: RESOLUTION: replace SHOULD by MUST in "and [proxies] SHOULD provide a simple means of retrieving a fresh copy"
15:39:31 [tomhume]: francois: we shouldn't go too far today as there's only the three of us left
15:39:46 [tomhume]: francois: otherwise we run the risk of resolving things without true consensus
15:40:09 [EdC]: +q
15:40:16 [tomhume]: francois: would like Jo to be here to experience the joy of "Validation against formal published grammar (4.2.8.1)"
15:40:44 [tomhume]: francois: eduardo (+?) is strongly in favour of well-formedness. I don't strongly object, but it feels too strong.
15:40:57 [EdC]: +q
15:41:00 [francois]: ack EdC
15:41:29 [tomhume]: Topic: Testing
15:42:12 [francois]: ACTION: eduardo to provide some text to clarify the intent of the Testing section
15:42:12 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-891 - Provide some text to clarify the intent of the Testing section [on Eduardo Casais - due 2008-12-09].
15:42:29 [tomhume]: francois: remaining topics need more participants.
15:42:36 [tomhume]: Topic: Implementation Conformance Statement
15:43:08 [tomhume]: francois: In the light of LC comments received, many commenters felt SHOULDs weren't strong enough
15:43:37 [tomhume]: ... the ICS is here to address this, which is why we add in this section "a conformant product must provide explanation when it doesn't follow SHOULD statements"
15:43:45 [francois]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0078.html fd's email on ICS
15:44:04 [tomhume]: ... Eduardo, I've seen your comments and have the same questions.
15:44:52 [tomhume]: ... started by putting in all the normative statements from the guidelines. The MUSTs and MUST NOTs give us another guidelines doc (!)
15:45:25 [tomhume]: ... one suggestion is that we have some preliminary clause saying "I follow all the MUST and MUST NOTs" so we can focus on SHOULD/SHOULD NOTs
15:45:38 [tomhume]: ... an ICS document SHOULD contain all the normative statements
15:46:08 [tomhume]: edC: I'm tempted to say the MUSTs should be there, but how can we put them there without a huge list?
15:46:31 [tomhume]: francois: the doc is automatically generated by XSLT. I can try it out and you can see what you prefer?
15:46:49 [tomhume]: edC: you will have statements mixing MUST and SHOULD though...?
15:47:13 [tomhume]: francois: agree there should be 1 statement per line
15:47:23 [tomhume]: ... each para contains SHOULD or SHOULD NOT
15:47:36 [tomhume]: +1
15:47:45 [EdC]: +1
15:48:40 [tomhume]: edC: I presume that you are trying to deal with some hierarchical statements. You SHOULD do X, which means you should do A, B, C. If you don't do X, A B and C don't apply.
15:49:14 [tomhume]: francois: that's not quite what I have in mind, but I haven't checked the statements. But if e.g. a CT proxy doesn't change request headers, then the SHOULD NOT modify request headers doesn't apply, because it's already being respected (!)
15:49:46 [tomhume]: edC: often there's a column listing other statements that must be fulfilled if this one is fulfilled - i.e. dependencies.
15:50:06 [tomhume]: francois: not sure we have that many hierarchies
15:51:42 [francois]: ACTION-846?
15:51:42 [trackbot]: ACTION-846 -- François Daoust to prepare an Implementation Conformance Statement -- due 2008-09-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:51:42 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/846
15:51:47 [francois]: Close ACTION-846
15:51:47 [trackbot]: ACTION-846 Prepare an Implementation Conformance Statement closed
15:52:37 [francois]: ACTION: Prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it.
15:52:37 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - Prepare
15:52:49 [francois]: ACTION: daoust to prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it.
15:52:49 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-892 - Prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a \"depends on\" column, explain \"Not applicable\" or remove it. [on François Daoust - due 2008-12-09].
15:53:31 [tomhume]: francois: let's close, the remaining topics ought to have others here
15:53:35 [tomhume]: edC: actions to review?
15:54:05 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12 Actions
15:54:27 [tomhume]: francois: action-730 has been postponed
15:54:32 [tomhume]: ... 830 is on bryan
15:54:41 [tomhume]: ... he's done it
15:55:32 [tomhume]: ... 833 is on Jo
15:55:57 [francois]: ACTION-833?
15:55:57 [trackbot]: ACTION-833 -- Jo Rabin to propose text against LC-2003 referring to the TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal operation -- due 2008-09-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:55:57 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/833
15:56:04 [francois]: Close ACTION-833
15:56:04 [trackbot]: ACTION-833 Propose text against LC-2003 referring to the TF's earlier discussions about not referring to a Proxy's internal operation closed
15:56:43 [tomhume]: ... 834 is already taken into account in the latest version of the draft
15:57:21 [francois]: ACTION-834?
15:57:21 [trackbot]: ACTION-834 -- Robert Finean to draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods -- due 2008-09-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:57:21 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/834
15:57:25 [francois]: Close ACTION-834
15:57:26 [trackbot]: ACTION-834 Draft a response to LC-2034 noting that the scope of CT as we mean it is limited to those methods closed
15:58:12 [tomhume]: ... action 843 refers to 4.1.5 where we have an open issue/discussion
15:58:18 [tomhume]: ... let's leave for now.
15:58:52 [tomhume]: ... 850 is on Bryan, re whitelists, he'd proposed to provide some text and hasn't so we're not mentioning them yet, but have an introductory text saying we're deliberately not mentioning them
15:59:37 [francois]: ACTION-859?
15:59:38 [trackbot]: ACTION-859 -- François Daoust to contact IETF TLS group and advise them of what we are thinking and ask for guidance on what to recommend to Content Provider about detecting the presence of a man-in-the-middle proxy -- due 2008-10-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:59:38 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/859
15:59:53 [tomhume]: ... 859 is done, but I haven't had replies other than "there's no real way to detect such a thing"
15:59:55 [francois]: Close ACTION-859
15:59:56 [trackbot]: ACTION-859 Contact IETF TLS group and advise them of what we are thinking and ask for guidance on what to recommend to Content Provider about detecting the presence of a man-in-the-middle proxy closed
16:00:12 [tomhume]: ... we have an open discussion on link rewriting as a whole
16:00:17 [francois]: ACTION-860?
16:00:17 [trackbot]: ACTION-860 -- Jo Rabin to add clarification to HTTPS rewriting to make it clear that the via header MUST be added -- due 2008-10-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:00:17 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/860
16:00:22 [francois]: Close ACTION-860
16:00:22 [trackbot]: ACTION-860 Add clarification to HTTPS rewriting to make it clear that the via header MUST be added closed
16:00:30 [francois]: ACTION-864?
16:00:30 [trackbot]: ACTION-864 -- Jo Rabin to redraft HTTPS section for discussion on list -- due 2008-10-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:00:30 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/864
16:00:41 [francois]: Close ACTION-864
16:00:42 [trackbot]: ACTION-864 Redraft HTTPS section for discussion on list closed
16:00:48 [francois]: ACTION-865
16:00:50 [francois]: ACTION-865?
16:00:50 [trackbot]: ACTION-865 -- Jo Rabin to word smith resolution on LC-2069 in line with its spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner andmore comprehensible -- due 2008-10-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:00:50 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/865
16:01:14 [francois]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069 LC-2069
16:01:55 [tomhume]: ... 2069 has been dealt with, we changed normative to non-normatively because we couldn't think of a normative way to word "regular web browsing"
16:02:00 [francois]: Close ACTION-865
16:02:00 [trackbot]: ACTION-865 Word smith resolution on LC-2069 in line with its spirit and come up with something a bit cleaner andmore comprehensible closed
16:02:52 [francois]: ACTION-866?
16:02:52 [trackbot]: ACTION-866 -- Jo Rabin to include text referencing resolution to LC-2003 -- due 2008-10-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:02:52 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/866
16:02:55 [francois]: Close ACTION-866
16:02:55 [trackbot]: ACTION-866 Include text referencing resolution to LC-2003 closed
16:04:15 [tomhume]: francois: suggest we close now
16:04:38 [Zakim]: -tomhume
16:04:43 [Zakim]: -Francois
16:04:44 [Zakim]: -Eduardo
16:04:45 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended
16:04:46 [Zakim]: Attendees were tomhume, rob, Francois, Eduardo
16:04:54 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:04:54 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:37:59 [rob]: rob has left #bpwg
17:29:46 [francois]: RRSAgent, bye
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-actions.rdf :
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Jo to take the editorial comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0019.html into account for next version of the draft [1]
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-irc#T15-13-26
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Eduardo to provide a short definition of "pagination". [2]
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-irc#T15-35-09
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: eduardo to provide some text to clarify the intent of the Testing section [3]
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-irc#T15-42-12
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it. [4]
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-irc#T15-52-37
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: daoust to prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it. [5]
17:29:46 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-bpwg-irc#T15-52-49
17:29:48 [francois]: Zakim, bye
17:29:48 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #bpwg