14:24:22 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 14:24:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-bpwg-irc 14:24:24 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:24:24 bonsoir 14:24:24 Zakim has joined #bpwg 14:24:26 Zakim, this will be BPWG 14:24:26 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 14:24:27 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 14:24:27 Date: 27 January 2009 14:24:40 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0071.html 14:24:43 Chair: DKA 14:25:50 Regrets: abel, DavidStorey, Kai, SangwhanMoon, VicquiChan 14:27:22 yeliz has joined #bpwg 14:28:20 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started 14:28:27 +??P0 14:28:39 zakim, p0 is me 14:28:39 sorry, DKA, I do not recognize a party named 'p0' 14:28:46 +??P1 14:28:46 zakim, ??p0 is me 14:28:47 +DKA; got it 14:28:49 -DKA 14:28:50 +DKA 14:29:04 zakim, ??p1 is me 14:29:04 +tomhume; got it 14:30:01 +Francois 14:30:50 jeffs has joined #bpwg 14:30:54 zakim, code? 14:30:54 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 14:31:40 + +3531522aaaa 14:31:40 zakim, who is here? 14:31:40 On the phone I see DKA, tomhume, Francois, +3531522aaaa 14:31:41 On IRC I see jeffs, yeliz, Zakim, RRSAgent, tomhume, DKA, jo, francois, trackbot, dom 14:31:49 zakim, aaaa is me 14:31:49 +jo; got it 14:32:21 +Dom 14:32:29 zakim, mute me 14:32:29 Dom should now be muted 14:32:38 achuter has joined #bpwg 14:32:56 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-StillPossible-F2F-March-2009/results 14:32:57 +Jeff 14:32:57 cgi-irc has joined #bpwg 14:33:15 SeanP has joined #bpwg 14:33:32 +??P6 14:33:35 zakim, who is here? 14:33:35 On the phone I see DKA, tomhume, Francois, jo, Dom (muted), Jeff, ??P6 14:33:36 On IRC I see SeanP, cgi-irc, achuter, jeffs, yeliz, Zakim, RRSAgent, tomhume, DKA, jo, francois, trackbot, dom 14:33:43 zakim, ??P6 is me 14:33:43 +achuter; got it 14:33:44 miguel has joined #bpwg 14:34:06 scribe: Jo 14:34:25 Topic: F2F 14:34:27 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-StillPossible-F2F-March-2009/results 14:34:30 +adam 14:34:40 +miguel 14:34:51 dka: London roolz 14:35:01 ... but we need to discuss a bit 14:35:10 +??P9 14:35:14 ... people from US may not be able to attend if we hold in London 14:35:16 zakim, ??P9 is yeliz 14:35:16 +yeliz; got it 14:35:24 +SeanP 14:35:27 EdC has joined #bpwg 14:35:30 ... I'm going to be there anyway for the AC meeting as is Kai 14:35:44 zakim, mute yeliz 14:35:44 yeliz should now be muted 14:36:04 ... plus as David Storey notes SxSW is also .. 14:36:05 +EdC 14:36:09 ... it's a trade off 14:36:31 ... balance of opinion is on London then I am happy with that (25-27 March) 14:36:40 ... no clear decision for London 14:36:48 q+ 14:36:53 jsmanrique has joined #bpwg 14:36:58 ack fran 14:37:09 s/no clear decision for London/no clear decision ref Boston, London seems to be the winner 14:37:22 Francois: what about Adam? 14:37:29 Adam: Britannia Roolz 14:37:50 s/Britannia Roolz/I'd prefer London, could make Boston though 14:37:59 DKA: Can you host? 14:37:59 -yeliz 14:38:07 ack me 14:38:16 Adam: sure but we may have a problem with NDA's being waived 14:38:30 Dom: Can't be held in a place where an NDA is ruired 14:38:41 s/ruired/required 14:38:53 ... but we did do it before at Google's office in LON 14:39:02 +josema 14:39:06 Adam: so I will chase up and see if we can follow that precedent 14:39:16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009. 14:39:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2004/06/NoNDAPolicy.html Policy Regarding Non-Disclosure Agreements and W3C Meetings 14:39:38 "W3C workshops, Technical Plenaries, Group meetings and other W3C-sanctioned events shall not be conducted on the premises of organizations that request W3C meeting participants to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to gain access to the host's facilities" 14:39:41 +??P15 14:39:43 zakim, mute me 14:39:43 Dom should now be muted 14:39:46 zakim, ??P15 is yeliz 14:39:46 +yeliz; got it 14:39:48 dka: we'll leave the question of hosts open, and if Google can't do it then we should be able to do it at Vodafone 14:39:53 zakim, mute yeliz 14:39:53 yeliz should now be muted 14:39:54 RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009. 14:40:22 s/RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009// 14:40:24 RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009 14:40:31 ACTION: daoust to setup a registration poll for next F2F in London 14:40:32 Created ACTION-903 - Setup a registration poll for next F2F in London [on François Daoust - due 2009-02-03]. 14:40:34 adam: need to have info on room sizes 14:40:47 dka: francois, would you be so kind as to organise a poll? 14:40:55 ... I would guess around 20 14:41:21 Topic: MWABP Update 14:41:47 Adam: have gone through Jo's extensive comments 14:42:03 ... I raised an Issue yesterday, and would like to go through it 14:42:06 ISSUE-287? 14:42:15 zakim, who is making noise 14:42:15 I don't understand 'who is making noise', jeffs 14:42:21 ... I'll keep raising issues as I trip across things over the forthcoming weeks 14:42:33 ISSUE-287 -- Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP -- OPEN 14:42:33 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/287 14:42:53 dka: good plan, wan't to open a discussion on how to get Ajax developers looking at this and engaing with it 14:43:08 ... anyone? 14:44:01 ... developer portals and Web sites, where we can get better community feedback 14:44:15 adam: don't know of anything mobile specific 14:44:28 +1 on site to allow dev feedback fm AJAX/Javascript devs... makes easier to solicit input from non-members 14:44:29 dka: where do people hang out who are working on iPhone Web apps 14:44:47 adam: sure there are Ajax discussion groups that would be a good place to go 14:44:51 suggest we est a site so we can publicize 14:45:00 rob has joined #bpwg 14:45:00 +rob 14:45:13 dka: need to think about where we are going to publicise 14:45:21 ... any android sites? 14:45:48 hmm... no point of raising an issue if nobody has a plan to submit? 14:45:53 ... (dan discusses raising an Issue) 14:45:57 ack me 14:46:16 if group does not object, I will also start a thread on my "Center fot the Handheld Web" blog http://chw.rit.edu/blog 14:46:23 dom: an issue with a plan to action it is like ... 14:46:32 s/fot/for 14:46:42 ... unlikely to get progressed 14:46:46 s/like// 14:47:17 +1 to jeffs 14:47:28 ... agree that we should get more feedback but think that someone needs to take an action to come back with a proposal or get on with some outreach 14:47:55 q+ 14:47:57 dka: jeffs, you can do some outreach? 14:48:08 zakim, mute me 14:48:08 Dom should now be muted 14:48:23 jeffs: The idea of getting people to do outreach and gather stuff together makes sense 14:48:44 ... I can do a post on the Center for the Handheld Web blog 14:49:08 ... if you want other people to do outreach then they can point there or do their own 14:49:35 ACTION: Jeffs to initiate discussion on his blog ref feedback on the MWABP 14:49:36 Created ACTION-904 - Initiate discussion on his blog ref feedback on the MWABP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-02-03]. 14:49:58 ACTION: appelquist to initiate discussion on betavine ref feedback on MWABP 14:49:58 Created ACTION-905 - Initiate discussion on betavine ref feedback on MWABP [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-02-03]. 14:51:12 ISSUE-287? 14:51:12 ISSUE-287 -- Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP -- OPEN 14:51:12 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/287 14:51:17 adam: ISSUE-287 ... 14:51:39 [I note the issue was raised as "RAISED", which hides it deep in the list of issues. The "OPEN" state should be preferred. An email should have been sent to the mailing-list but was not. That's all dom's fault, for sure.] 14:52:25 to clarify, asking for feedback on MWABP in general or ECMAScript in specific? 14:53:04 ... 3.1.1 Retain Info for Personsalization ... and 3.1.2 Autoamtically identify users ... 14:53:18 ... aprat from Network Operators this is really the same thing 14:53:26 s/aprat/apart/ 14:53:45 ... kind of no-brainer ways of keeping track of users and their preferences 14:54:15 ... the gist is basically to identify user and minimise the input - the difference from BP1 being that there are more ways to do that nwo 14:54:22 s/nwo/now/ 14:54:32 dka: the how to do it can be merged if they are combined 14:54:55 adam: they are basically sayiong the same thing, once they are combined though not sure of the difference to BP1 14:55:23 [I have made sure new issues would appear as "open"; trying to figure out why issues aren't sent to the mailing list anymore] 14:55:33 Jo: I think we need to get to the bottom of authentication separately. I agree with Adam however on this point. 14:55:51 [found why] 14:56:16 adam: what does the team think we are trying to say with this best practice, i.e. what improtant info should be in here, rather than just adding details for the sake of it 14:56:32 s/improtant /important / 14:56:45 dka: can you do a proposal with a "before and after" 14:56:49 adam: OK 14:56:56 -Jeff 14:57:13 Action: ref ISSUE-287 Adam to create a proposal for merge of 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 14:57:13 Sorry, couldn't find user - ref 14:57:46 Action: connors to create a proposal for merge of 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 ref ISSUE-287 14:57:47 Created ACTION-906 - Create a proposal for merge of 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 ref ISSUE-287 [on Adam Connors - due 2009-02-03]. 14:57:55 akc me 14:57:58 ack me 14:58:00 Topic: The "lang" attribute 14:58:09 dom: basically ... 14:58:42 ... I ran some MobileOK statistics and one of the biggest causes of error was the fact that XHTML Basic doesn't allow the lang attribute 14:59:15 ... at the same time I18N strongly recommends that in text/html you use both lang and xml:lang 14:59:37 ... so either you break good practice for mobielOK or for I18N 15:00:19 ... and the new orthodoxy is that any version of XHTML can be served as text/html (rather than only XHTML 1.0) 15:00:20 s/mobielOK/mobileOK 15:00:40 ... XHTML2 WG is considering adding the lang attribute 15:01:04 ... by going through the "proposed edited rec" process 15:01:18 ... they are interested in support and assitance from BPWG 15:01:28 ... so are we interested in adding the lang attribute 15:01:34 to XHTML Basic? 15:01:34 +bruce 15:01:40 s/to/... to/ 15:01:50 Fine with me, but as far as I know, most mobile devices supporting XHTML basic support XHTML basic 1.0, not 1.1. 15:02:00 dka: non trivial 15:02:13 brucel has joined #bpwg 15:02:25 dom: not difficult though proposed edited rec process, especially as limited in scope 15:02:33 ... they want us to say we support 15:02:50 dka: I am supportive ... but hink that we need to understand more 15:03:08 ... if we support and they make a change will we make a change to the checker? 15:03:18 ... and so more content will become mobileOK 15:03:51 dom: yes they would release a new DTD and we'd amek a trivial change to the checker and lots of sites would instantly become mobileOK 15:03:58 dka: what is the time frame? 15:04:13 ... if it goes beyond June we are not around to make the change 15:04:59 dom: given that we have a nromative dependency on XHTML Basic 1.1 we don't need a formal resolution to do ti, so even if the process take longer than the remaining time that is not a problem 15:05:13 s/to do ti/to do it/ 15:05:17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the BPWG supports adding the lang attribute in XHTML Basic 15:05:23 +1 15:05:26 +1 15:05:31 +1 15:05:31 +1 15:05:31 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG supports inclusion of lang attribute in all versions of XHTML and of upgrading checker to ake into account 15:05:37 +1 15:05:52 +1 to jo 15:05:52 s/ake/take/ 15:06:06 All versions means those specified by W3C -- not XHTML mobile profile... 15:06:16 +1 15:06:18 [which one were people supoprting? mine is broader than Dom's?] 15:06:19 (not = not necessarily) 15:06:34 +1 15:07:36 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG supports inclusion of lang attribute in XHTML and of upgrading checker to take into account 15:07:48 +1 15:08:11 +1 15:08:14 +1 15:08:20 +1 15:08:35 RESOLUTION: BPWG supports inclusion of lang attribute in XHTML and of upgrading checker to take into account 15:08:50 zakim, mute me 15:08:50 Dom should now be muted 15:08:53 Topic: HTTPS 15:08:56 q? 15:09:08 q- jeffs 15:09:10 ack jeffs 15:09:10 q+ 15:09:22 ack f 15:09:46 francois: this discussion is on MWABP rather than than CT 15:10:34 ... have had some feedback from the Web App Security Context group and think we will get feedback from them following their meeting tomorrw 15:10:52 ... so sugegst we postpone till next week 15:11:04 s/sugegst/suggest 15:11:12 Topic: HTTPS qua CT 15:11:52 francois: we need to rationalise the topic on content transformation, and Jo had an action but he hasn't done it yet 15:12:09 ... we have everything on the table and we need to make a decision 15:12:19 q? 15:12:27 ... will we put soemthing in the guidelines and if so what would it be 15:12:33 q+ 15:12:35 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:12:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-bpwg-minutes.html dom 15:12:39 ack rob 15:12:43 s/soemthing/something/ 15:13:00 RRSAgent, make log public 15:13:13 rob: I started the discussion off on what should be done to address the question of what to do if you are the "man in the middle" 15:13:21 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jan/0023.html Rob's email on links rewriting 15:13:22 ... ref security 15:13:38 ... perhaps we should generalise the discussion rather than limiting to HTTPS 15:13:54 ... that was my intention in kicking the discussion off 15:14:15 ... but the discussion assumed the HTTPS context 15:14:54 and a third issue: general security considerations on transformations not necessarily dependent on URL rewriting, nor on HTTPS (cookies, referer, etc). 15:15:05 francois: there are two questions, i) intercepting secure connections ii) rewriting links which triggers a number of cross site scripting problems 15:15:16 ... and other security issues 15:15:53 ... I think that we should have a "security consideration" section as proposed by Eduardo referencing what has been written by Rob 15:16:05 zakim, who's noisy? 15:16:15 ... I hope we are clear that we can't recommend to break the secure connection 15:16:17 dom, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Francois (45%), achuter (9%), EdC (13%) 15:16:26 ... we can't endorse that as a best practice 15:16:27 zakim, mute achuter 15:16:27 achuter should now be muted 15:16:41 dka: what is the way out of this 15:17:02 zakim, mute me 15:17:02 achuter was already muted, achuter 15:17:09 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Include a section on General Security Considerations, which is appliccable to "man-in-the-middle" transformations, irrespective of SSL 15:17:19 francois: I think there should be a security consideration topic, more alerts 15:17:48 q+ tos ay that jo has the action already 15:18:05 q+ to say that jo has the action already 15:18:29 ACTION: Jo to action his outstanding action 15:18:29 Created ACTION-907 - Action his outstanding action [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-02-03]. 15:18:46 ACTION-902? 15:18:46 ACTION-902 -- Jo Rabin to summarise current discussions on https link re writing -- due 2009-01-27 -- OPEN 15:18:46 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/902 15:19:01 zakim, who's noisy? 15:19:11 dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: DKA (19%), EdC (4%), bruce (9%) 15:19:18 close ACTION-907 15:19:18 ACTION-907 Action his outstanding action closed 15:19:53 dka: anything else? 15:20:34 s/more alerts/or rather a security alert section/ 15:21:25 francois: I think we already resolved to change the link rewriting section - especially to remove the MAY as this would be to endorse the practice, which we don't 15:21:43 There are editorial issues, to be done conformance statements, mandatory heuristics, at least. 15:22:06 ... we really need a crystallization of the topic as it has spilled over into so many other areas 15:22:48 Topic: Mandatory Heuristics 15:23:04 ISSUE-286? 15:23:04 ISSUE-286 -- Transformation of Mobile Content/Mandating some respect of some heuristics -- OPEN 15:23:04 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/286 15:23:31 ferancois: sean - sumamry? 15:23:52 sean: I raised this issue last week, but no email got sent out 15:24:34 -achuter 15:24:49 ... issue was raised about mandating heuristics around content-types and doctypes that are unambiguously mobile 15:24:54 s/ferancois: sean - sumamry/francois: sean - summary 15:24:57 ... raised originally by Dom back in Nov 15:25:36 ... we discussed a couple of weeks ago and I said that if you don't allow transformation on mobile pages then this prevents link rewriting 15:25:44 ... and so you lose the proxy function 15:26:23 ... so I wrote up the issue of user choice to allow users to choose mobile pages and EdC brought sup some points which I tried to answer 15:26:28 ... and that is where we are 15:26:41 (as I mentioned last week, this only applies to cases where the proxy rewrites links; when it does, we could allow only to rewrite links, so as to preserve the proxy function) 15:27:11 francois: so we need to summarise where we agree and where we disagree 15:27:57 q+ 15:28:05 ... so we need to agree that we say that those heuristics SHOULD be respected but with the caveat that the user can express the choice to continue link re-writing 15:28:12 ack me 15:28:12 jo, you wanted to say that jo has the action already 15:28:21 ack ed 15:28:44 EdC: I don't think there is disagreement 15:28:50 ... idea is simple 15:29:23 ... if user doesn't want any kind of trasnformation then they get page untouched and they get links to non mobile sites 15:29:57 s/trasnformation/transformation 15:30:12 q+ 15:30:24 ack me 15:30:34 ... but on the other hand if they allow transformed content then it is just a question of how the proxy works. Some will need to rewrite to keep users on mobile pages and others wont 15:30:42 ... it is just a question of implementation 15:31:10 ... saying SHOULD NOT is fine, you just need a reason to do otherwise 15:31:37 dom: it's more complicated than that. If the Proxy works at netowrk level then requests get caught anyway 15:31:49 ... but for link re-writing proxies it is more difficult. 15:32:15 ... so this would prevent non netowrk level proxies from doing their job 15:32:33 [Proxies SHOULD NOT transform explicit mobile content save links rewriting in Linked-mode proxies?] 15:32:38 ... so the CT guidelines could say that rewriting links is OK in this case 15:32:59 q+ 15:33:09 ... we should be as strict as possible for network level proxies but for link rewriting proxies, restrict as much as possible 15:33:14 ack e 15:33:16 ack ed 15:33:36 edc: if you have to rewrite then you will rewrite and that is included in the SHOULD 15:34:10 q+ 15:34:22 dom: but that's not restrictive enough - so we need to explicitly limit what can be rewritten in those circumstances 15:34:41 -tomhume 15:34:47 q+ 15:34:56 ack edc 15:35:43 edc: the question of saying which restrictions is a long topic - we could open too big a can of worms and we won't be able to resolve it. 15:36:08 ... rewriting URLs in out of band proxies falls into that category 15:36:27 dom: that would open the door to trasnforming everything 15:36:37 edc: 15:37:01 s/trasnforming/transforming/ 15:37:01 s/trasnforming/transforming 15:37:35 ack SeanP 15:38:00 seanp: you know where I am coming from, if a user allows it then we should be able to transform sites 15:38:15 ... we gets lots of requests for this 15:38:22 q+ to say that it is allowed 15:38:31 In short:CT-proxies should not modify mobile content -- except as strictly necessary to make desktop content accessible to mobile devices. URL rewriting is unavoidable for out-of-band proxies (i.e. those that do not capture all HTTP traffic by default). Other transformations are in principle not admissible. 15:38:33 ack jo 15:38:33 jo, you wanted to say that it is allowed 15:39:08 jo: we already say that users may request transformed content but that can't be the default assumption 15:39:27 seanp: sounded like mobile was going to be treated differently to the mobile page 15:39:32 jo: ah I see 15:39:39 q+ 15:40:00 ack f 15:41:34 francois: doh? 15:43:05 jo: I think that Sean was saying that we allow transformation of the request and therefore implicit requested transformation of the response (from desktop to mobile) but we haven't documented any facility for the user to request transformation of a mobile response. The one applies to the request and the other applies to the response irrespective of the request 15:43:10 seanp: yes 15:43:23 dka: jo can you scrivbe that as a resolution 15:43:30 jo: no, not now I'm busy, dammit 15:44:25 [Summary of what I think: we agree to mandate respect of explicit mobile pages, with 2 points to detail: 1. on the wording for proxies that operator in links-mode 2. user expression of choice for transformation of mobile pages] 15:44:43 +1 to francois summary 15:44:50 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Introduce a section describing a non-defaultable user option to tranform responses irrespective of the transformation of the request, even where the response is apparently mobile according to the so-called mandatory heuristics 15:45:09 on francois.2, I think we should keep it simple, and say your "deployment" doesn't conform when mobile page gets transformed 15:45:37 What's meant by non-defaultable? 15:45:48 This seems to me splitting hairs. End-users are actually offered the following: leave everything untouched. Transform responses from desktop to mobile -- it might have some side effects on mobile pages depending on the implementation of the gateway, i.e. out-of-band might have to rewrite URL to external desktop sites. Transform mobile transactions for whatever other reasons. 15:45:55 s/that operator/that operate 15:46:54 on francois.2, I think we should keep it simple, and say your "deployment" doesn't conform when mobile page gets transformed 15:47:22 q+ 15:47:29 ack EdC 15:47:31 ack ed 15:48:47 edc: stunned by proposal of defaultable: simply put the user can have 3 choices - a) no transformation at all b) access desktop sites and transform c) some additional transformation 15:49:44 dom: problem with the approach is that you can say that the user signed a contract that says everything gets trasnformed, so this is really not a viable choice 15:50:00 ... so we are really creating lots of loop holes [Emmental?] 15:50:15 edc: didn't we say that these have to be opt-in 15:50:20 q+ 15:50:32 ack seanp 15:50:34 dom: isn't signing a contract opting in? 15:50:44 edc: no you have to check what you want 15:50:46 q+ 15:50:59 q+ seanp 15:51:02 ack jo 15:51:43 jo: we say that preferences will be maintained on a site by site basis which goes some way to addressing Dom's point 15:51:59 [but that doesn't match the everything/only dekstop/nothing approach that eduardo proposed, does it?] 15:52:27 s/dekstop/desktop 15:53:06 ack SeanP 15:53:12 seanp: ref dom's point ref the contract - I thought we moved moved it to an appendix to out of band means, and that we were going to an interstitial apporach - i.e. something you do on the phone and not something you do by contract 15:53:24 s/moved moved/moved 15:53:27 ... and what about about the site by site thing 15:53:40 ... thought it was on a session basis 15:53:42 q? 15:53:46 jo: we say site by site 15:54:14 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-administrative-arrangements Current section on user preferences 15:54:19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Introduce a section describing a non-defaultable user option to tranform responses irrespective of the transformation of the request, even where the response is apparently mobile according to the so-called mandatory heuristics 15:54:23 Current version 4.2.2 User Preferences 15:54:23 Proxies must provide a means for users to express preferences for inhibiting content transformation. Those preferences must be maintained on a user by user and Web site by Web site basis. 15:54:24 "Proxies must provide a means for users to express preferences for inhibiting content transformation. Those preferences must be maintained on a user by user and Web site by Web site basis. Proxies must solicit re-expression of preferences in respect of a server if the server starts to indicate that it offers varying responses as discussed under 4.2.6 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header." 15:55:41 q+ 15:55:49 dom: I think this is too detailed. It should be non-conformant 15:55:54 ack francois 15:55:57 francois: I agree with Dom 15:55:58 The resolution proposal is convoluted. 15:56:05 ... isn;t 4.2.2 enough? 15:56:16 ... it's not limited to request or response 15:56:29 ... let's elave 'as is' 15:56:36 s/elave/leave/ 15:56:37 and mandate respect of explciit mobile site 15:56:50 s/isn;t/isn't 15:56:55 s/explciit/explicit 15:57:22 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: leave 4.2.2 as is and do not say anything about transformation of mobile-friendly content. 15:57:29 s/and mandate respect/... and mandate respect 15:57:38 Basically, you could have many other transformation options: filter for viruses, translate from * to English, add dancing bears, etc. All these are user-selectable. 15:57:54 PROPSOED RESOLUTION: We will not offer an explicit carve out for transforming mobile content at user request, transformation of such content is non-conformant 15:58:04 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mandate respect of heuristics (as SHOULD), with caveat on links rewriting 15:58:22 +1 to both 15:58:35 s/PROPSOED/PROPOSED/ 15:58:46 q+ 15:58:53 ack sean 15:59:00 seanp: liked the original one better 15:59:55 ... are we saying in the proposed resolution that if you transform mobile content then you are non conformant? 16:00:07 francois: yes 16:00:23 dka: isn't there a middle way? 16:00:29 s/francois:/dom: 16:00:31 dom: we need to take this to the list 16:00:45 dka: thanks and good night 16:00:52 -Dom 16:00:54 -adam 16:00:58 -rob 16:00:59 -bruce 16:00:59 -Francois 16:01:00 -SeanP 16:01:08 miguel has left #bpwg 16:01:18 -miguel 16:01:20 -jo 16:01:22 -DKA 16:01:28 -manrique 16:01:48 zakim, who is here? 16:01:48 -yeliz 16:02:06 On the phone I see EdC 16:02:11 zakim, drop edc 16:02:18 On IRC I see brucel, rob, yeliz, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, francois, trackbot, dom 16:02:26 EdC is being disconnected 16:02:30 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended 16:02:32 Attendees were DKA, tomhume, Francois, +3531522aaaa, jo, Dom, Jeff, achuter, adam, miguel, yeliz, SeanP, EdC, manrique, rob, bruce 16:02:56 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:02:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:05:53 brucel has left #bpwg 16:15:19 rob has left #bpwg 18:23:21 Zakim has left #bpwg