14:22:43 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 14:22:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-bpwg-irc 14:22:45 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:22:45 Zakim has joined #bpwg 14:22:47 Zakim, this will be BPWG 14:22:47 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:22:48 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 14:22:48 Date: 03 March 2009 14:23:06 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0000.html 14:23:14 jeffs has joined #bpwg 14:23:54 Chair: DKA 14:25:28 rob has joined #bpwg 14:25:38 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started 14:25:45 + +1.585.278.aaaa 14:25:58 zakim, aaaa is jeffs 14:25:58 +jeffs; got it 14:26:01 yeliz has joined #bpwg 14:27:04 Regrets: jo, tomhume, nacho, miguel, jeffs, dom, BruceLawson, chaals, DavidStorey 14:27:07 Hi jeff 14:27:31 hey francois, I am here... no "regrets" 14:28:06 cgi-irc has joined #bpwg 14:28:52 +Bryan_Sullivan 14:28:56 -jeffs 14:28:58 +jeffs 14:29:05 achuter has joined #bpwg 14:29:08 Regrets- jeffs 14:29:49 abel has joined #bpwg 14:29:55 Joining soon. 14:30:11 +DKA 14:30:13 zakim, who is making noise? 14:30:24 jeffs, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeffs (31%), Bryan_Sullivan (18%), DKA (14%) 14:30:31 + +0207287aabb 14:30:54 zakim, aabb is rob 14:30:54 +rob; got it 14:31:28 +francois 14:32:08 zakim, who is here? 14:32:08 On the phone I see jeffs, Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, rob, francois 14:32:09 On IRC I see abel, achuter, cgi-irc, yeliz, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, DKA, francois, trackbot 14:32:21 Scribe: rob 14:32:28 +??P7 14:32:29 scribeNick: rob 14:32:35 zakim, ??P7 is yeliz 14:32:35 +yeliz; got it 14:32:43 + +0121707aacc 14:32:48 zakim, mute yeliz 14:32:48 yeliz should now be muted 14:33:04 SeanP has joined #bpwg 14:33:24 zakim, aacc is Bruce 14:33:24 +Bruce; got it 14:33:35 Regrets- BruceLawson 14:33:36 brucel has joined #bpwg 14:33:46 zakim, Bruce is really brucel 14:33:46 +brucel; got it 14:33:50 EdC has joined #bpwg 14:34:12 Topic: Update on MWABP 14:34:44 DKA: looking at traffic on the list, Adam says there's another draft pending 14:34:56 zakim,code? 14:34:56 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), cgi-irc 14:35:18 francois: Adam's working on it, he's doing it this week 14:35:24 +SeanP 14:35:33 zakim, mute me 14:35:33 DKA should now be muted 14:36:07 adam: francois asking on voice if you are on the call 14:36:22 + +41.31.972.aadd 14:36:37 zakim, aadd is EdC 14:36:37 +EdC; got it 14:37:17 + +0207881aaee 14:37:28 zakim, aaee is adam 14:37:28 +adam; got it 14:37:32 zakim, unmute me 14:37:33 DKA should no longer be muted 14:38:36 q+ 14:38:48 adam: I've had another pass through the doc making changes agreed and hope to post this draft this week. 14:39:06 adam: hope to have another draft before the F2F as well 14:39:07 +Kai_Dietrich 14:39:10 ack fr 14:39:46 DKA: Can we be in a position to address Last-Call comments at the F2F? Is this possible still? 14:40:53 francois: I don't think we have any choice except to have a few more iterations, the document needs to be pretty much finished before Last Call 14:41:43 what has happened with the whole transcoding/https issue, please?? 14:42:09 Kai has joined #bpwg 14:42:11 adam: Abel (who submitted the SVG BPs) suggested that these are not stand-alone BPs but support existing BPs 14:42:32 jeffs, the whole transcoding/https issue is still on, but for the Content Transformation Guidelines, not for MWABP. 14:42:45 ... so we propose to remove the SVG section itself 14:43:21 DKA: If there is no expertise in the WG then we should try to get feedback from elsewhere 14:43:41 adam: I assume feedback will come to the public list? We've asked there. 14:43:45 would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? 14:43:59 DKA: may need some outreach work if there's no response on the list 14:44:13 +1 on including canvas... 14:44:20 adam: I've also asked about Canvas experience 14:44:51 DKA: these drawing mechanisms fall under the same umbrella 14:44:59 would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? and would you like me to look at canvas materials?? 14:45:12 +Martin 14:45:29 DKA: should we release another public draft now then? 14:45:30 jsmanrique has joined #bpwg 14:45:39 dan & adam: would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? and would you like me to look at canvas materials?? 14:45:43 Jeffs - yes and yes please. 14:45:47 okay 14:45:52 :) 14:46:20 adam: if public drafts encourage more feedback then maybe we should have more of them. We need more feedback. 14:46:31 q+ 14:46:43 ack fra 14:46:57 brucel: I'll see ifOpera has more SVG experience to share 14:47:05 dan: do you want to make me an action re canvas? or just report back more informally?? 14:48:18 dan: do you want to make me an action re canvas? or just report back more informally?? 14:48:32 francois: I agree we should publish publically as often as possible to get more feedback but it does delay work a bit because of the window for comments 14:49:26 adam: Abel asks "It is going to be incorporated as concrete use cases for specific BPs?" 14:49:29 Bryan has joined #bpwg 14:49:49 Topic: Update on BP Addendum 14:49:52 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0066.html 14:50:01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/att-0066/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090210.html 14:50:36 Kai: several changes have gone into this doc... 14:51:38 ... have adopted the format that Dom suggested reducing the information to the minimum requireed 14:51:57 ... Doc is self-explanatory 14:52:29 ... Abstract and Intro now conform to Jo's text 14:53:20 DKA: Is there anything else needed now (References, appendicies etc)? 14:53:48 ... some of the text is pretty telegraphic! 14:54:19 Kai: that's intentional. This doc never had explanatory text in its scope 14:54:30 small question: in the "evaluation procedures": are the bullet points always to be checked sequentially as specified, or is the order not that strict? 14:54:52 ... Some of the devaluations need review, eg Device Properties 14:55:00 q+ 14:55:04 ... Did anybody read this doc? 14:55:36 + +03491121aaff 14:55:53 zakim, aaff is me 14:55:53 +achuter; got it 14:56:01 ack francois 14:56:09 DKA: Apparently! We intent to publish this doc before the F2F so timely review is essential 14:56:25 +1 get docs out for reading well in advance of the f2f 14:56:39 francois: Maybe 1 week for comments and resolve next week to publish or redraft? 14:57:08 Kai: That'd be good 14:58:26 francois: a questionnaire forces membes to respond and is a good way to ensure the document is reviewed 15:00:18 DKA: can you do that Francois? 15:00:23 francois: yes 15:00:56 Kai: Thanks. I've got one small typo to correct, shall i do that now or just comment on it? 15:02:08 francois: references section needs updating to match the style guide but isn't essential for the review 15:02:42 Kai: OK, so these 2 points can be comments along with everything else from the questionnaire 15:03:05 Thanks to Manrique for helping out with the document! 15:03:18 DKA: Good, hopefully there will be Champagne at the F2F then 15:03:38 Topic: Update on CT 15:04:03 francois: Haven't made much progress this past few weeks 15:04:33 zakim ACTION jeffs to get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP 15:04:50 ... still uncertain about HTTPS link rewriting and security, Jo is working on new wording to move the discussion on 15:04:59 ACTION jeffs to get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP 15:04:59 Created ACTION-910 - Get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-03-10]. 15:05:38 ACTION jeffs to get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP 15:05:38 Created ACTION-911 - Get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-03-10]. 15:05:45 ... Also X-Device- prefix headers is an open issue 15:05:46 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0001.html Eduardo's proposal on X-Device-* HTTP headers 15:06:38 ... Eduardo's proposal is to stick with X-Device headers because there is no practical benefit in moving to registered headers 15:07:16 zakim, who is making noise? 15:07:25 -1 to X-Device- prefix headers... as I read IETF stuff, this would be "taky" 15:07:27 francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bryan_Sullivan (7%), DKA (33%) 15:07:39 ... but there might be trouble ahead proposing "experimental headers" in the Rec 15:08:12 there is a low buzz on my phone - analog noise - some wiring issue 15:08:32 i can switch to mobile if needed 15:08:41 -Kai_Dietrich 15:08:43 jeffs: reading the IETF stuff it's definitely against using X-Device 15:09:58 DKA: is there a middle way? To pursue registering a Device- header but in the Rec make it clear that X-Device is in widespread use? 15:10:09 q+ 15:10:41 ack edc 15:11:12 EdC: what is the practical benefit of registering? 15:11:55 q+ 15:12:08 q+ 15:12:17 ack bry 15:12:19 q? 15:12:32 DKA: If you want to play nice in the Internet then the IETF who define HTTP set the rules and they say X- "experimental" headers need to be depricated eventually 15:13:02 ack franc 15:13:03 goodbye all; vaccination time 15:13:11 -brucel 15:13:39 Bryan: Registration and deprication takes a long time, so practically makes little difference 15:15:46 francois: If we formally register the Device headers, then we need to be clear exactly why we need them and it's been argued it's a hack of arguable value it the CT Guidelines are followed as a whole. 15:15:46 q+ 15:15:55 ack sean 15:16:13 ... So we really need to tidy the use-case if we are going to register the header 15:16:37 I refer to my comments regarding long migration phase, HTTP header overhead, and temporary character to be replaced by a solution as POWDER. 15:17:23 SeanP: the use-case is to allow an origin-server to log or vary it's behaviour even when content is being transformed 15:18:05 francois: then the CT-proxy should not alter these HTTP headers 15:18:37 But we are not allowed to make standards in this group... 15:19:07 DKA: there is a contradiction: do we need it at all? vs it's in such widespread use we can't depricate it 15:20:51 q+ 15:21:12 ack seanp 15:21:18 ... is the use-case of content-selection (eg which J2ME download) vs content-transformation one that justifies X-Device use? 15:22:51 SeanP: the use-case is where the user has asked for desktop content (and spoofed the User-Agent). X-Device-User-Agent then allows the origin server to log or trace information 15:23:03 q+ 15:23:25 ack edc 15:25:39 EdC: The CT-proxies that systematically alter the User-Agent seem to regardless of the content. So maybe there isn't strong ground for registering this with the IETF 15:27:14 DKA: Do you mean ask IETF if to register the header or ask IETF if we should be using the overall Device- header scheme at all? 15:27:46 EdC: Yes 15:29:05 +1 15:29:10 q+ 15:29:19 ack fran 15:29:53 DKA: purely from IETF perspective, the only way forward is to say X-Device is used if User-Agent is altered, it is real advice to content providers. But don't propose registering the header because it's not seen as being a widely used use-case moving forwards 15:30:33 from RFC 2076 (I think this is the right one) : '"experimental" This header is used for newly defined headers, which are to be tried out before entering the IETF standards track.' 15:30:40 francois: then we'd have a normative problem - "a CT-Proxy MUST use X-Device-" 15:31:06 Jeffs: in practice X- has been interpreted as eXtension rather than eXperimental, and this for a long time... 15:32:17 ... the only solution I see is to move it to an informative section for content-providers 15:32:34 ... without mandating the CT-Proxies all use it 15:33:25 q+ 15:33:42 -1 15:33:42 ... I agree with Eduardo that if it is useful then registering with IETF would only make the mess greater 15:33:46 ack sean 15:34:26 SeanP: I'd prefer it to be normative to avoid variations that we have at the moment 15:35:16 agree w Dan's idea, put folks on notice in this doc and formally consult w IETF 15:35:24 DKA: working with IETF does give notice that this will be deprecate at some stage, is that useful? 15:35:53 ... Is that acceptable? or a block to publication? 15:36:11 francois: It won't block a Last-Call 15:36:18 q+ 15:36:34 ack ed 15:36:51 DKA: I want to decouple publication of the 1.0 document from IETF discussion 15:37:07 "may be deprecated" 15:37:23 agree w "may be", more real 15:37:43 EdC: Depricated doesn't mean replace X-Device- with Device- - it might mean change the scheme altogether 15:39:46 DKA: Ed, can you sugest some new wording keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF that may depricate this in the future? 15:40:38 ACTION Eduardo to suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF and may deprecate this in the future 15:40:38 Created ACTION-912 - Suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF and may deprecate this in the future [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-03-10]. 15:40:47 q+ 15:40:49 Topic: Update on F2F logistics 15:40:49 q+ 15:40:53 there was a last issue: mandatory "heuristics" for CT. 15:40:54 q? 15:41:10 adam: Still OK to use Google in Victoria 15:41:41 OK, there is another fourth one: conformance statements (longer term)... 15:41:47 q- 15:41:57 francois: we're 10 or 11 people 15:42:00 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-March-2009/results Results of the F2F questionnaire 15:42:43 q+ 15:42:52 ack seanp 15:43:27 SeanP: can we have the address please for booking? 15:44:19 ACTION Dan to start agenda discussion for upcoming F2F in London 15:44:19 Created ACTION-913 - Start agenda discussion for upcoming F2F in London [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-03-10]. 15:44:21 Will there be conference calls during the F2F? If so, coordination with agenda and numbers to call? 15:44:26 adam: I'll send logistics info after this call 15:44:50 [I think so Eduardo, yes, I'll put the info on the page] 15:44:57 conf call facilities for WG f2f would be A Good Thing 15:45:06 ISSUE-286? 15:45:06 ISSUE-286 -- Transformation of Mobile Content/Mandating some respect of some heuristics -- OPEN 15:45:06 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/286 15:45:12 Topic: Update on CT 15:45:47 francois: All the arguments are on the table but we still need consensus 15:46:29 q? 15:46:34 ack franc 15:46:45 q+ 15:46:53 ack seanp 15:48:10 q? 15:48:54 SeanP: the reason I disagreed is that there is a continuum of content from lowest-common-denominator content to full desktop content and some of it may benefit from adaptation on certain devices 15:49:32 q+ 15:49:46 ack seanp 15:49:49 q+ 15:49:52 francois: the counter-argument is that the content-providers want control over how their content is presented to their customers 15:50:18 SeanP: Cache-Control: no-transform provides that control 15:50:32 ack edc 15:50:40 zakim, who is making noise? 15:50:48 francois: with other side-effects and it requires the content provider changing their websites 15:50:51 francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bryan_Sullivan (9%), rob (42%) 15:51:18 EdC: Yes, we're recapping old arguments here 15:51:21 +1 on SeanP's comment... when in doubt, leave up to page-server to specify if they so choose 15:53:36 ... and remember some content providers don't have much control over the headers their hosting service provides 15:54:10 DKA: Can we resolvethis with a poll? 15:55:03 francois: yes, something like "Do we mandate the heuristics? - Yes/No" 15:55:13 q+ 15:55:47 ack seanp 15:56:06 as long as I am out of mtg by 11:30am EST I can attend any day m-th now 15:56:59 DKA: this call is scheduled on US-time 15:57:34 ... and US moves to summer-time next week, 3 weeks before Europe does 15:57:35 as long as I am out of mtg by 11:30am I can attend any day m-th now 15:58:37 ... We also have some absentees next few weeks so we will discuss on this on the mailing list 15:59:08 http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc 15:59:22 "spring forward" 15:59:45 ... But for next week we keep to US-time which will mean moving to 13:30 UTC next week 16:00:04 see you 16:00:06 yeliz has left #bpwg 16:00:06 -DKA 16:00:07 -achuter 16:00:08 -Bryan_Sullivan 16:00:10 -rob 16:00:11 -francois 16:00:11 -SeanP 16:00:14 -jeffs 16:00:15 -EdC 16:00:17 -Martin 16:00:35 -yeliz 16:00:48 brucel has left #bpwg 16:03:19 abel has left #bpwg 16:03:56 Zakim, who is on the call? 16:03:56 On the phone I see adam 16:04:26 zakim, drop adam 16:04:26 adam is being disconnected 16:04:27 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended 16:04:29 Attendees were +1.585.278.aaaa, jeffs, Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, +0207287aabb, rob, francois, yeliz, +0121707aacc, brucel, SeanP, +41.31.972.aadd, EdC, +0207881aaee, adam, Kai_Dietrich, 16:04:31 ... Martin, +03491121aaff, achuter 16:04:36 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:04:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:16:13 rob has left #bpwg