13:19:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:19:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-irc
13:19:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:19:30 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:19:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:19:32 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
13:19:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:19:33 <trackbot> Date: 10 March 2009
13:22:40 <dom> Chair: DKA
13:23:02 <dom> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0054.html
13:24:16 <dom> Regrets: Francois, Jo, Miguel, Manrique, Yeliz, Adam, Sangwhan, Abel, Nacho, Bruce
13:25:25 <jeffs> jeffs has joined #bpwg
13:26:17 <rob> rob has joined #bpwg
13:26:50 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started
13:26:57 <Zakim> + +1.585.278.aaaa
13:27:44 <jeffs> zakim, aaaa is jeffs
13:27:44 <Zakim> +jeffs; got it
13:29:06 <dom> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0054.html
13:29:27 <dom> Regrets+ Tom
13:30:25 <Zakim> +Dom
13:30:48 <Zakim> +??P14
13:30:50 <jeffs> s/scolar/scholar
13:30:56 <achuter> zakim, ??P14 is me
13:30:56 <Zakim> +achuter; got it
13:31:09 <DKA> ring ring
13:31:21 <DKA> zakim fail
13:31:35 <Zakim> + +0774811aabb
13:31:41 <DKA> zakim, aabb is me
13:31:41 <Zakim> +DKA; got it
13:33:19 <Zakim> + +0207287aacc
13:33:28 <rob> zakim, aacc is me
13:33:29 <Zakim> +rob; got it
13:34:14 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
13:34:31 <dstorey> dstorey has joined #bpwg
13:34:36 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
13:34:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeffs, Dom, achuter, DKA, rob
13:34:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see dstorey, SeanP, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, achuter, DKA, trackbot
13:34:52 <dstorey> having troubles getting the conference phone to accept the passcode
13:35:14 <DKA> Scribe: Jeff
13:35:17 <dom> scribeNick: jeffs
13:35:21 <DKA> ScribeNick: jeffs
13:35:49 <DKA> Topic: Questionnaire on the TPAC
13:36:03 <Zakim> + +0472369aadd
13:36:06 <jeffs> Topic: Questionnaire on TPAC
13:36:13 <Zakim> + +1.630.414.aaee
13:36:21 <SeanP> Zakim, aaee is me
13:36:21 <Zakim> +SeanP; got it
13:36:33 <dom> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2009Mar/0020.html Whether BPWG will be at TPAC 2009 in Santa Clara, Nov 2009
13:36:35 <jeffs> simultaneous TPAC and AC meeting 2-6 November in Santa Clara
13:36:43 <EdC> EdC has joined #bpwg
13:37:09 <jeffs> Dan: do we really think the Group's work will be competed by then?
13:37:15 <DKA> Yes, Ed, there is a BPWG.
13:37:36 <jeffs> Dom: it appears unlikely both CT and MWAppsBP completed by the end of june
13:37:41 <Zakim> + +41.31.972.aaff
13:37:41 <dstorey> i've joined the call, not sure how to match my number to my irc name though
13:38:01 <dom> zakim, aaff is dstorey
13:38:01 <Zakim> +dstorey; got it
13:38:02 <jeffs> Dom: would not be surprised if it took us until the end of this calenda year.
13:38:22 <jeffs> Dan: wondering how many people from EU will be able to attend
13:38:52 <jeffs> Dom: plan at this time is to add $15/day fee to cover meeting costs for TPAC/AC in Nov
13:38:54 <dom> "The current plan is to hold Group meetings on Monday 2, Tuesday 3, Thursday 5, and Friday 6 November. The Technical Plenary Day would be held all day Wednesday 4 November. The AC Executive Session would start on the evening of Tuesday 3 November and will be continued in the afternoon of Thursday 5 November. We also plan to charge a registration fee of $50/day to defray a portion of the expenses (more details forthcoming)."
13:39:02 <dom> s/$15/$50/
13:39:10 <DKA> q?
13:39:11 <jeffs> Dan: can we do a quick poll on the Web?
13:39:16 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
13:39:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeffs, Dom, achuter, DKA, rob, +0472369aadd, SeanP, dstorey
13:39:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see EdC, dstorey, SeanP, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, achuter, DKA, trackbot
13:39:21 <jeffs> Dom: can we do a quick round on this call
13:39:28 <jeffs> +1 for me to be there
13:39:40 <DKA> +1
13:39:47 <dstorey> probably +1 too
13:39:53 <dom> [I probably would go, whether or not BPWG meets there]
13:39:53 <SeanP> +1
13:39:54 <jeffs> Dan: if there is a reason to meet, Dan will be there too (probably maybe)
13:39:58 <rob> +0.5 for me
13:40:00 <EdC> -1
13:40:08 <achuter> zakim, mute me+1 probably
13:40:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mute me+1 probably', achuter
13:40:14 <achuter> +1 probably
13:40:39 <achuter> I may also have other WG meetings then
13:40:45 <jeffs> Dan: wants conditional Web-based poll - to determine if we should reserve a spot
13:40:53 <jeffs> Dom: will send out a poll
13:41:25 <jeffs> Dom: maybe this will have to be decided by the Chairs on the basis of the poll
13:41:35 <jeffs> Dan: let us do a poll and ask ppl to respond by friday
13:41:44 <dom> ACTION: Dom to create a poll to check who would attend at a F2F in TPAC
13:41:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-914 - Create a poll to check who would attend at a F2F in TPAC [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2009-03-17].
13:42:16 <jeffs> Dan: Francois created a face-to-face mtg logistics page
13:42:27 <jeffs> Topic: CT (defer)
13:42:48 <dom> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-CT-heuristics/results
13:43:09 <jeffs> Dan: we still need ppl to respond to the poll, ASAP (today)
13:43:33 <jeffs> Dan: discussion deferred awaiting more responses
13:43:48 <jeffs> Dom: let us look at the current respnses
13:44:00 <jeffs> s/respnses/responses
13:44:23 <jeffs> Dan: poll referred to is addendum on the MWAPB
13:44:27 <dom> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-addendum-feedback/results
13:44:52 <jeffs> Dom: comments need to be taken into account
13:45:32 <jeffs> Dan: how should we orchestrate the additional work which needs to be accomplished?
13:46:00 <jeffs> Dan: would a focused editorial session on this topic work?
13:46:49 <jeffs> Dan: another option would be focused time or a breakout at the f2f focused on MWApps
13:47:47 <jeffs> Dan: teleconf attendance at mtg should not be a problem
13:48:01 <jeffs> Dan: moving on to next item
13:48:13 <jeffs> Topic: Mandatory Heuristics issues
13:48:21 <achuter> zakim, mute me
13:48:21 <Zakim> achuter should now be muted
13:48:24 <jeffs> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-CT-heuristics/results
13:48:55 <jeffs> Dom: running problem - should we mandate things ref to transcoding madating yes/no
13:49:26 <jeffs> Dom: most say "yes, no transcoding" with comments in other direction from Sean
13:49:42 <jeffs> Dom: pls express opinion via poll ASAP
13:50:18 <DKA> zakim who is here?
13:50:28 <jeffs> Dan: thinks we should take a resolution on this as it is a SHOULD requirement
13:50:36 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
13:50:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeffs, Dom, achuter (muted), DKA, rob, +0472369aadd, SeanP, dstorey
13:50:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see EdC, dstorey, SeanP, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, achuter, DKA, trackbot
13:51:23 <jeffs> Sean: there seems to be some agreement that it should be a SHOULD-level requirement, unless the user has requested that the transformation be allowed
13:51:30 <jeffs> Sean: would be okay with that
13:52:01 <jeffs> Dom: can I take this as meaning you would not raise a formal objection?
13:52:09 <jeffs> Sean: I would not raise a formal objection
13:52:24 <jeffs> Dan: asks Dom to raise formal resolution
13:52:28 <jeffs> Dom: okay
13:52:46 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: a CT proxy SHOULD NOT transform a page that matches well-known mobile heuristics (to be defined) unless the user has explicitly requested it
13:53:03 <DKA> +1
13:53:10 <SeanP> +1
13:53:10 <dom> +1
13:53:11 <jeffs> +1
13:53:31 <jeffs> RESOLUTION: a CT proxy SHOULD NOT transform a page that matches well-known mobile heuristics (to be defined) unless the user has explicitly requested it
13:53:41 <Zakim> -SeanP
13:53:43 <dom> ISSUE-268?
13:53:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-268 -- Test cases to illustrate mobile web application best practices -- OPEN
13:53:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/268
13:53:53 <jeffs> Dan: are there additional sub-issues?
13:53:56 <dom> ISSUE-286?
13:54:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-286 -- Transformation of Mobile Content/Mandating some respect of some heuristics -- OPEN
13:54:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/286
13:54:20 <EdC> +1
13:54:46 <DKA> q?
13:54:55 <jeffs> Dan: my impression we need more discussion on the heuristics themselves
13:54:57 <Zakim> +SeanP
13:55:02 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobile doctypes (XHTML MP and Basic, WML, iMode) is a recognized mobile heuristic
13:55:15 <jeffs> +1
13:55:16 <DKA> +1
13:55:16 <EdC> +1
13:55:17 <rob> +1
13:55:19 <SeanP> +1
13:55:24 <jeffs> RESOLUTION: mobile doctypes (XHTML MP and Basic, WML, iMode) is a recognized mobile heuristic
13:55:36 <jeffs> s/is/are
13:55:37 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href=""/> and <link rel="alternate" media="all" href=""/> are a recognized mobile heuristic
13:56:05 <DKA> +1
13:56:09 <jeffs> +1
13:56:11 <EdC> +1
13:56:18 <SeanP> q+
13:56:31 <DKA> ack seanp
13:56:42 <jeffs> Dan: to be clear, are we limiting the allowed heuristics to what we list
13:56:56 <jeffs> Dom: media="all" means page is for all defined media types
13:57:32 <jeffs> Sean: if media="all" is there def a handheld page?
13:58:12 <jeffs> Dom: "all" is supposed to include "handheld"
13:58:17 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href=""/> is a recognized mobile heuristic
13:58:53 <jeffs> Dan: this also relates to my issue, are we telling ppl you SHOULD use these heuristics and NOT any others?
13:59:10 <rob> +1
13:59:13 <SeanP> +1
13:59:16 <jeffs> Dom: we are saying you have to respect these heuristics, but are not constrained from using your own in addition
13:59:19 <DKA> +1
13:59:22 <jeffs> +1
13:59:35 <jeffs> RESOLUTION: <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href=""/> is a recognized mobile heuristic
13:59:42 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: MIME Types defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-Example-Content-Types minus application/xhtml+xml are mobile heuristics
13:59:53 <rob> +1
14:00:02 <jeffs> +1
14:00:07 <DKA> +1
14:00:08 <dstorey> +1
14:00:30 <EdC> +1
14:00:39 <SeanP> +1
14:00:45 <achuter> 0
14:00:47 <jeffs> RESOLUTION: MIME Types defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-Example-Content-Types minus application/xhtml+xml are mobile heuristics
14:01:35 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: a mobileOK claim is a mobile heuristic
14:01:42 <jeffs> Dan: let us make an informative note that vendors may also wish to respect a mobileOK client
14:02:50 <jeffs> Dan: let our document not be gated by POWDER
14:03:43 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: a mobileOK claim is a mobile heuristic, but marked as a "feature at risk"
14:03:50 <jeffs> +1
14:04:00 <dom> +1
14:04:05 <EdC> q+
14:04:05 <DKA> +1
14:04:06 <SeanP> +1
14:04:11 <DKA> ack ed
14:04:40 <jeffs> Ed: is that just at the level of an idea or defined in doc?
14:05:21 <jeffs> Dan it is defined but insufficient implementation experience
14:05:27 <rob> +1
14:05:28 <EdC> +1
14:05:31 <jeffs> s/Dan/Dom
14:05:42 <jeffs> RESOLUTION: a mobileOK claim is a mobile heuristic, but marked as a "feature at risk"
14:06:01 <EdC> q+
14:06:04 <DKA> ack ed
14:06:06 <jeffs> Dan: can we then close ISSUE-286, chorus of "no"
14:06:09 <EdC> Microsoft-specific meta-tag
14:06:10 <EdC> "MobileOptimized" intended to identify Mobile-IE optimized
14:06:10 <EdC> content.
14:06:10 <EdC> <meta name="MobileOptimized" content="nnn">
14:06:10 <EdC> where nnn is a number of pixels.
14:06:47 <dom> -1 on MobileOptimized
14:06:56 <jeffs> Dan: asks Ed for URI to document about this issue on MSDN
14:07:10 <dom> -> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms890014.aspx Definition of mobileOptimized in MSDN
14:07:32 <dstorey> If it a IE thing, it may risk Pocket IE optimised stuff
14:07:35 <jeffs> Dom: not very widely deployed so does not need to be on the list
14:07:50 <EdC> It is defined here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms890014.aspx
14:08:09 <dom> -> http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/UsingtheViewport/chapter_4_section_5.html safari viewport
14:09:12 <dstorey> So far WebKit, Opera Mobile, and I think Opera Mini
14:09:40 <rob> q+
14:09:43 <jeffs> Dan: asking what should be on the list
14:10:01 <EdC> q+
14:10:07 <jeffs> Dan: does it make sense to be more permissive now and cut down later based on community feedback?
14:10:09 <DKA> ack rob
14:10:34 <jeffs> Rob: these things tend to be designed for small devices anyway
14:10:43 <dom> +1 on keeping the list as short as possible for next draft
14:11:03 <DKA> ack edc
14:11:06 <DKA> q?
14:11:22 <jeffs> Dan: becomes an issue with higher-res/browser-capability smartphone
14:11:54 <jeffs> Rob: difficult to distinguish when represented as HTML
14:12:32 <jeffs> Dom: tends towards keeping list as short as possible and looking for feedback on what to include in the end
14:12:48 <jeffs> Dan: what about including these 2 as editorial note
14:13:07 <EdC> Unsure or in section E?
14:13:12 <jeffs> would vote for including Viewport 
14:13:33 <jeffs> Dan: asking for proposed resolution
14:13:51 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is a  proposed mobile heuristic, as an editors note
14:13:58 <jeffs> +1
14:14:23 <EdC> Where do editors' notes appear in the document?
14:14:48 <dstorey> tentatively +1 but wil lhave to look at what params are set in the viewport
14:15:05 <SeanP> 0 (because I don't know enought about it right now)
14:15:25 <jeffs> Dom: include a note saying asking for feedback on including Viewport in the list of heuristic
14:16:03 <DKA> +1
14:16:04 <EdC> Is viewport specifically iPhone specific, or more generally WebKIT? If the latter, found in desktop browsers?
14:16:07 <jeffs> http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html#//apple_ref/html/const/viewport
14:16:27 <jeffs> for all the viewport properties
14:16:42 <jeffs> Dom: works on a number of smartphne browsers
14:17:02 <jeffs> s/smartphne/smartphone
14:17:24 <rob> 0
14:17:41 <EdC> 0 (what about the parameters that distinguish viewports for mobiles?)
14:17:42 <jeffs> for Apple docs on Viewport attributes and uses: http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html#//apple_ref/html/const/viewport
14:17:53 <jeffs> Dan: thinks we should take a resolution
14:18:46 <jeffs> dstorey: this is not mobile-specific
14:19:47 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a proposed mobile heuristic, since it is not an explicit declaration of mobile content
14:19:56 <EdC> +1
14:20:14 <jeffs> hmmmmm, think I am a -1 on this right now
14:20:37 <SeanP> +1
14:20:38 <DKA> +0
14:20:47 <jeffs> why does a heuristic have to be solely about mobile? can it not be about displays and germane to mobile?
14:21:53 <jeffs> Dom: WRT jeffs question - scope of CT document is only to regulate things about mobile
14:21:56 <dom> zakim, who's noisy?
14:22:01 <jeffs> q+
14:22:06 <dom> ack jeffs
14:22:08 <Zakim> dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Dom (5%)
14:22:10 <DKA> q?
14:22:12 <dom> zakim, mute me
14:22:12 <Zakim> Dom should now be muted
14:22:20 <DKA> Scribe: Dan
14:22:23 <DKA> ScribeNick: DKA
14:22:44 <DKA> Jeff: We're talking about regulating within the mobile domain - I don't see how this (viewport) is out of scope.
14:22:45 <dom> ack me
14:23:39 <SeanP> q+
14:23:39 <DKA> Dom: [rephrasing] meta name=viewport could be used for a tv screen where resolution is limited but you don't have other mobile limitations - as such it's not an explicit indication that a page is intended for mobile.
14:24:19 <EdC> This seems a similar issue as the media="all" for CSS.
14:24:21 <DKA> Jeff: Seems to me that just because it can be used for other display devices doesn't mean it can't be used as an explicit heuristic in a mobile context. We're talking about what the mobile browser will or won't do when it hits this tag.
14:25:41 <DKA> Dom: in the case where you're designing a tv-specific page and you're using heavy images, you use meta name=viewport to say that the expected width is 600 pixesl wite but that doesn't mean your page is designed for mobile - so a proxy in this specific case should transform the content.
14:25:59 <DKA> Jeff: Just looking at one thing doesn't make sense...
14:26:32 <DKA> Dom: We're not saying ct proxies must not used meta-name=view port as a heuristic. What we're saying is that it's not sufficient.
14:27:05 <DKA> Dom: We are also saying that as soon as you encounter one of the heuristics you shoul not transform.
14:27:10 <DKA> Jeff: OK
14:27:19 <DKA> Jeff: Will you not mention viewport at all?
14:27:26 <DKA> Dom: Yes.
14:27:28 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it is not an explicit declaration of mobile content
14:27:34 <DKA> Jeff: I'm not happy.
14:27:51 <DKA> Jeff: Makes sense to use [viewport] somewhere.
14:28:16 <dom> s/use/mention/
14:28:27 <DKA> Dom: Could be in an appendix but could create confusion.
14:28:36 <dom> ScribeNick: jeffs
14:29:21 <EdC> Could be in section E, but then there should be a mention that the attributes associated to the tag must be analyzed to try to figure out whether the target is mobile or not.
14:29:59 <jeffs> Dan: personally inclined to include it as a note, feedback from community will tell us if we need to mandate otehr heuristics
14:30:08 <SeanP> +1
14:30:10 <jeffs> s/otehr/other
14:30:11 <DKA> +1 to not including viewport as a recognized heuristic
14:30:19 <EdC> +1
14:30:36 <jeffs> 0
14:30:42 <dom> +1
14:30:46 <rob> 0
14:30:59 <EdC> so what about mobileoptimized ?
14:30:59 <jeffs> RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it is not an explicit declaration of mobile content
14:31:30 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: including an editor's note on calling for more mobile-specific heuristics
14:31:31 <jeffs> Dan: *now* can we close that issue?
14:31:44 <achuter> 0
14:31:44 <DKA> +1
14:31:45 <EdC> +1
14:31:53 <jeffs> +1
14:32:02 <jeffs> RESOLUTION: including an editor's note on calling for more mobile-specific heuristics
14:32:19 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it doesn't seem to widely-deployed enough to deserve mention
14:32:36 <DKA> +1
14:32:49 <jeffs> 0
14:33:16 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="mobileOptimized" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it doesn't seem to widely-deployed enough to deserve mention
14:33:22 <jeffs> +1
14:33:28 <SeanP> +1
14:33:40 <EdC> -1 (but...)
14:33:42 <EdC> q+
14:33:56 <dom> ack Sean
14:34:03 <DKA> q?
14:34:06 <dom> ack EdC
14:34:11 <rob> 0
14:34:48 <jeffs> EdC: on the one hand, could decide this is taken as a not-heuristic, on the other hand, could be in appendix
14:34:59 <jeffs> Dom: we are just addressing mandated heuristicvs
14:35:09 <EdC> +1 (not in mandated heuristics)
14:35:14 <jeffs> s/heuristicvs/heuristics
14:35:39 <jeffs> Dom: should we adress non-mandated heuristics now or later?
14:35:52 <jeffs> Dan: let us look for community feedback first
14:36:11 <EdC> What about an editorial note mentioning consideration for the mobileoptimized and calling for feedback?
14:36:56 <jeffs> Dom and Dan: back and forth on whether we should be working with non-normative (or potentially so) heuristics
14:38:01 <jeffs> Dom: the Q for me is: should we have it or weill it get outdated very quickly? do not wish to create confusion about the heuristics
14:38:10 <jeffs> s/weill/will
14:39:04 <SeanP> q+
14:39:06 <jeffs> Dan: suggests not having such a scection unless enormous community feedback to deal w this
14:39:10 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we do not include a list of non-mandated heuristics in the document
14:39:13 <DKA> ack seanp
14:39:21 <jeffs> s/scection/section
14:39:22 <EdC> -1
14:39:44 <jeffs> Sean: this could be useful to content providers
14:40:09 <DKA> q?
14:40:13 <jeffs> Dom: if only useful to them, but not to content providers, should not be in this doc
14:40:34 <jeffs> I for one think such a list is useful
14:40:48 <dom> s/if only useful to them, but not to content providers, should not be in this doc/don't think it's useful to content providers if they can't rely on it to make decisions/
14:40:55 <jeffs> Dan: who supports that resolution, pls?
14:41:46 <jeffs> Dom: wants to create a new issue on this specific point
14:42:12 <jeffs> Dan: wants to close larger issue we have and open new issue specific to this topic
14:42:18 <dom> close ISSUE-286
14:42:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-286 Transformation of Mobile Content/Mandating some respect of some heuristics closed
14:42:19 <jeffs> +1
14:42:23 <EdC> +1
14:42:46 <jeffs> TOPC remaining CT issues 
14:43:08 <EdC> q?
14:43:19 <jeffs> s/TOPC/TOPIC
14:43:25 <EdC> q+
14:43:36 <jeffs> Dan: suggests we close the call if no burning issues
14:44:15 <DKA> ACTION-897?
14:44:15 <trackbot> ACTION-897 -- Eduardo Casais to establish what best current practice is with regard the withrawal of use of X- once the non X- form is agreed -- due 2009-01-20 -- OPEN
14:44:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/897
14:44:29 <EdC> lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0000.html
14:44:49 <jeffs> Dom: shouldn't we talk the larger topic before we close the issue?
14:44:58 <jeffs> Dan: okay
14:45:29 <jeffs> s/shouldn't we talk the larger topic/shouldn't we talk about the larger topic
14:45:49 <jeffs> Dan: wants to talk over in last 15 mins of mtg
14:46:06 <jeffs> EdC: addressing the larger point of the X-Device field
14:47:11 <jeffs> EdC: some proxies modify the header sent by the terminal, but then put in again as x-device- but x-headers are experimental only according to IETF
14:47:41 <Zakim> -achuter
14:47:45 <jeffs> EdC: current IETF practice allows registering both X-field and non-X-field headers for transition period
14:48:11 <jeffs> EdC: this does not bring any benefits to proxy providers etc
14:48:34 <jeffs> EdC: requires programming and communications overhead 
14:49:16 <jeffs> EdC: proposal is keep X-device header fields for the moment and indicate in CT guidelines these may become deprecated 
14:49:53 <jeffs> Dom: one proposal is to not say anything about additional headers to be sent
14:50:00 <dom> s/one/another/
14:51:12 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we mandate sending X-device headers, and say they may get deprecated in the future
14:51:19 <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we do not mandate sending X-device headers
14:51:23 <EdC> q+
14:52:29 <DKA> q?
14:52:31 <jeffs> EdC: we had already discussed some time ago and current version of the guidelines should say proxies should not modify, and if do should save original values in X-header fields
14:52:32 <DKA> ack edc
14:53:09 <jeffs> EdC: is this 2 resolutions or 1?
14:53:11 <SeanP> q+
14:53:16 <DKA> ack seanp
14:53:16 <jeffs> Dom: choice of one or the other
14:53:44 <jeffs> SeanP: didn't we settle on the 1st version last week?
14:53:56 <EdC> q+
14:54:00 <jeffs> I also remember settling on #1 
14:54:12 <DKA> q?
14:54:14 <DKA> ack edc
14:54:17 <jeffs> Dom: checking minutes
14:54:54 <jeffs> EdC: my issue is that if we go for 2nd resolution, what do proxies send? original values or modified values?
14:54:58 <DKA> +1 on number 1
14:55:09 <jeffs> +1 on number 1
14:56:19 <jeffs> EdC and Dom: back and forth
14:56:54 <SeanP> +1 on 1
14:57:01 <jeffs> Dan: I don't think we can take a resolution on this today
14:57:28 <rob> +1 to #1 as well
14:57:29 <jeffs> Dan: we need to record strong support for mandating, but we need to defer 
14:57:42 <dom> close ACTION-897
14:57:47 <trackbot> ACTION-897 Establish what best current practice is with regard the withrawal of use of X- once the non X- form is agreed closed
14:58:22 <jeffs> Dan: has draft agenda for f2f almost done, will try to get it out tomorrow
14:58:44 <Zakim> -DKA
14:58:45 <Zakim> -Dom
14:58:46 <EdC> bye.
14:58:47 <Zakim> - +0472369aadd
14:58:48 <Zakim> -rob
14:58:50 <Zakim> -SeanP
14:58:51 <jeffs> Dan: time to say goodbye
14:59:11 <jeffs> (waves at dom) thanks for all the work
14:59:24 <Zakim> -jeffs
15:00:04 <Zakim> -dstorey
15:00:05 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
15:00:06 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.585.278.aaaa, jeffs, Dom, achuter, +0774811aabb, DKA, +0207287aacc, rob, +0472369aadd, +1.630.414.aaee, SeanP, +41.31.972.aaff, dstorey
15:00:18 <rob> rob has left #bpwg
15:00:30 <dom> ISSUE-288 and ISSUE-289 created
15:00:37 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:00:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html dom
15:00:42 <dom> zakim, bye
15:00:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #bpwg
15:37:26 <dstorey> dstorey has joined #bpwg