See also: IRC log
francois: Not much to say on
this, except we were talking about this a few months ago and
the XHTMLWG integrated the lang attribute into XHTML Basic 1.1.
The second edition is a "proposed edit recommendation edition",
close to replacing the first edition. When it's done we can
update the DTD in the mobileOK checker to have the LANG
attribute back.
... This is good news in that we're consistent with the I18N
group.
jo: is there a DTD we could use if we want to?
<francois> XHTML Basic 1.1 PER
francois: there's a schema for those who prefer it.
<francois> DTD in the spec
francois: this section contains links to the actual files - the version associated with the document and that evolving over time.
jo: when should we edit the checker?
francois: wait for the document to become a recommendation, and then update the checker
jo: do we refer to a specific version in the checker?
francois: we're not talking about editions in the document
jo: we don't say anything specific at all, if we're talking about mobileOK basic
francois: all we have is a link
to XHTML Basic 1.1, the dated version of the first edition.
This will link to the new edition.
... mobileOK basic targets the first edition. We don't say
anything specific about DTDs, and I don't think we need to do
anything to clarify this. We could an erratum to the spec if we
need to, to explain what we mean by the XHTML Basic 1.1 DTD...
that it follows the evolution of XHTML Basic 1.1 recommendation
(or not).
jo: but it's not an erratum, it's a clarification...
francois: if moving to the new
DTD is a normative change (I think it's a correction of
something wrong), we can't just produce an erratum. If we feel
it's a useful clarification we can add an erratum - that's the
only way to add such comments.
... let's wait for XHTML Basic to become a recommendation.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add an erratum to mobileOK Basic Tests, at the right time, to point to the edited version of XHTML Basic 1.1 including the lang attribute
<brucel> agree
<rob> +1
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: Add an erratum to mobileOK Basic Tests, at the right time, to point to the edited version of XHTML Basic 1.1 including the lang attribute
<EdC> +1
jo: francois, can you enact this pls?
<jo> ACTION: daoust to enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-959 - Enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec [on François Daoust - due 2009-05-19].
<yeliz> +1
<francois> new draft of MWABP
jo: we've had no feedback on this document as yet.
adam: I've had some feedback on appcache, an HTML5 feature for caching web apps locally. It'd be good to have a BP on this subject and discuss what form this should take. It's very HTML5-specific, that's all the feedback I've had so far.
<EdC> What about the pending feedback from Francois and myself?
jo: How do you tell that feature is present?
adam: It's supported based on the target platform. Good question.
jo: do we want to discuss the merits of the proposal on this call, or shall we gather some of these to discuss in a more consolidated way once we've had feedback? The latter, I suggest
adam: agree
<jo> ISSUE: Should we have a BP on appcache?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-297 - Should we have a BP on appcache? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/297/edit .
adam: re pending feedback from eduardo... the outstanding issue is with 3.6.1 and 3.6.2. Agree with your comments, as they're formulated right now they're a bit mickey mouse and don't reflect reality. Not sure how to make them better - best solution might be to make the language more woolly, talk about preferring server-side XXX. Or if you have specific things you'd like to see in there, feel free to propose them.
edc: I suggest you write a
proposal and I'll comment on it again.
... The other issue is on sprites.
<francois> 3.4.6 CSS Sprites
<jo> ACTION: adam to write a proposal in answer to EdC's comments on 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-960 - Write a proposal in answer to EdC's comments on 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 [on Adam Connors - due 2009-05-19].
adam: barring opinions from others, I don't have any more I can extract through inspection. 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 are the sections; the issue is technical and advanced, they're dependent on device support - we have proposed icons to represent the fact that you need certain features in the browser for them to make sense as recommendations. There's a general issue of whether they make sense as recommendations, or if they're "advanced tweaks"
edc: I'm reminded of multipart-mixed. if its supported (blackberry and openwave browsers should be ok, safari has lousy support for it), then it solves all your problems with icons and provides greater benefits. I wonder what kind of best practice we want to put into this document.
adam: can someone take an action to investigate multipart-mixed?
<jo> ACTION: Tom to investiagate multipart-mixed in the context of 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of MWABP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-961 - Investiagate multipart-mixed in the context of 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of MWABP [on Tom Hume - due 2009-05-19].
francois: I sent a comment about the security stuff (2.1 - do not execute untrusted Javascript). Final paragraph needs rewriting.
<francois> 3.2.1 JSON
francois: again, it's how to find
a balance between best practice and what's acceptable. it makes
sense in 99% of cases, there's 1% where security can be
impacted.
... so maybe it's not a good idea there.
adam: one option would be to remove that paragraph. Or we could reword this paragraph to ensure that correct escaping is used with eval(), and that this might even then not be secure.
francois: it's about not having access to sensitive data when you do it.
adam: I'll have a crack at rewording and send to the list.
jo: wouldn't it be better for the sake of simplicity to remove the paragraph?
francois: I'd prefer it removed
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove second para of 3.2.1.2 and make no reference to efficiency
+1
<rob> +1
<yeliz> +1
RESOLUTION: Remove second para of 3.2.1.2 and make no reference to efficiency
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: Remove second para of 3.2.1.2 and make no reference to efficiency
<adam> +1
<EdC> +1
francois: one thing I can do is to write a post on the BPWG blog to trigger reactions.
<jo> ACTION: Francois to reach out for comments on MWABP via the BPBlog [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-962 - Reach out for comments on MWABP via the BPBlog [on François Daoust - due 2009-05-19].
francois: could you reach your respective developer communities too? I suspect we won't get much feedback, it's a working draft and not a last call (last calls tend to trigger reactions)
jo: any idea of groups we should particularly outreach to?
<EdC> Suggestion: if anybody blogs, try to participate in the Carnival of the mobilists: http://mobili.st.
adam: feels like a dearth of
feedback. Been pushing hard at work for this.
... I'm inclined to sit on it for a week or two whilst I make
outstanding changes and wait for feedback internally. That
draft can be our LC candidate.
jo: so LC will be end this month/early june
yeliz: as far as I know there hasn't been any agreement to proceed with the publication of the draft.
jo: any action required from our side?
francois: i've not checked emails of the education/outreach group. We took a resolution 2 weeks ago to publish the draft as soon as they're ok with it.
jo: so we've prior approved it... we can go ahead when ready.
jo: I'm the blocker here, haven't
added some further comments. We'll need an editorial session
following that.
... it'll be a couple of weeks before I get a chance to do more
on this.
<adam> +1
<brucel> bruce test
jo: on action 929, appreciate
your input here Eduardo - I do have some comments. Apologies
for not replying.
... would rather make them on-list than now.
<EdC> Let us defer then.
jo: so let's defer that
discussion. Apologies for not making progress, it'll be another
couple of weeks before I can address it.
... anything else on CT from anyone?
jo: the problem with recommending specific vendor things is obvious, but if they're prevalent in the marketplace it's equally problematic not to mention them.
ed: MS has faced the problem of
having devices that are more capable and less capable and
having several ways of viewing pages - fit to screen, view as
is, try to do something clever, etc. - and they realised there
was a need to let developers state explicitly that the content
was optimised, there's no need to try and do something clever
with it, it will display OK on mobile, etc.... so ignore the
default browser settings and do what the content provider
intended.
... so it's been there for some time. It's documented in the MS
mobile windows site. Its importance is that it's a rare
indication that HTML content has been developed for mobile.
<brucel> does the metatag say *which* mobile browser/phone its already optimised for?
ed: usually all the rules we've
examined have had to do with content types, markers, which were
almost-exclusively used by mobile devices and not by PC
browsers... and this is the only indication in HTML content
that is unambiguously indicative that this is HTML content
optimised for smartphones.
... It is attached to windows mobile devices, whatever their
market-share is at present.
bruce: does it say which browser/phone the content is optimised for? Or that I as a developer am certain this is lean and mean? I'm not sure what the tag means.
ed: it's an indication that is meant for internet explorer
<francois> Layout meta tag in MSDN
<francois> [[ Web developers use the MOBILEOPTIMIZED meta tag to control the Internet Explorer Mobile layout ]]
ed: it'll be ignored by any other browser.
bruce: so are we saying if this tag exists it must be obeyed and no transformation must be done by any browser... or not by IE?
jo: it is conclusive evidence
that the site has been created for mobile
... the question it raises to me is that if we see evidence in
the markup that specific devices are being targeted... is it
equally conclusive evidence that its' ready for the device
we're targeting to?
... if you want to show evidence your markup is targeting
mobile there are lots of other ways of doing it.
bruce: i agree with you that we shouldn't crown any vendor-specific marker.
<yeliz> I agree with Bruce as well
ed: there are lots of other ways
of doing it. i'd like to know what they are, given that we're
restricting them.
... this is the only markup I know that will work for HTML (as
opposed to XHTML, WML, etc)
jo: you could use rel="handheld"
with a self-referential link
... my preference is that vendor-specific things irrespective
of whether the device belongs to that vendor is a dangerous
path.
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to wonder if it's evidence the site is made-for-mobile or made-for-mobile-IE?
<brucel> I'm not against vendor-specific stuff per se, and IE can obey its own metatags, but noone else should be bound by them
tom: Agree, this is saying IE Mobile shouldn't transform, but not sure that this could be extended to other browsers not transforming.
<SeanP> I agree that we should avoid vendor markup
<jo> PORPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt the MS specific <meta name="MobileOptimized" content="NNN"> as mandatory evidence of mobile content
<jo> -1
<rob> 0
-1
<EdC> 0
<francois> -1
<SeanP> -1
<yeliz> -1
<brucel> -`1
<francois> EdC's email
ed: this relates to XHTML
stylesheets. You can, with some transcoders, mark stylesheets
and control how much is filtered out by transcoders. The
proposal is "if you see the XHTML stylesheet which is marked as
mobile-ready, in principle they shouldn't be taken out".
External stylesheets marked as "all" mean "good for every
device". Here the point is that there are some browsers (newer
ones especially) that will not consider ALT stylesheets but
take desktop and ALL
... since ALL covers both categories (mobile and full web), the
second part of the proposal is to say "ALL means ALL" and it
shouldn't be touched.
<Zakim> francois, you wanted to wonder about what should not be touched
francois: what should not be touched? The XHTML content, the HTML, the CSS?
ed: the CSS
francois: it only makes sense if
you don't touch the XHTML. In many cases you could make changes
in the HTML, then CSS changes are required... as you change the
structure of the HTML page some directives are no longer valid
and don't make sense. If you change the HTML you may need to
change the CSS - not that CT proxies necessarily do this
properly...
... so we can't prevent it in the guidelines.
jo: this sounds like the discussion on the transformability or otherwise of images. is there a parallel worth considering?
ed: you might have XHTML which does links without native for handheld/desktop stylesheets. You might change the HTML but not stylesheets.
<SeanP> Francois is correct; if you change the markup, you probably will need to change the CSS
jo: sean/rob? any comment?
sean: agree with francois. If the markup is changed, good chance you need to change the CSS too.
ed: if you don't change the XHTML, does it make sense to change the CSS? No.
jo: this is even more similar to "if there's a no-transform on the HTML, does this have implications to included parts". We decided not, on images. Does the same argument apply here?
ed: The same would apply but here we're explicitly saying "yes, if it's for a mobile device".
sean: if you have a no-transform or some other content type, it should apply to the CSS.
jo: a derived no-transform rather than an explicit one.
<Zakim> rob, you wanted to say seems sensible to either transform both HTML and CSS together or change neither
<brucel> I need more time to think thru after the explanations ...
rob: agree with ed and sean. typically you'd change both HTML and CSS or neither. can't see any reason to just change CSS.
<jo> PROPSOED RESOLUTION: If the HTML is being treated as "no transform" then external stylesheets retrieves as a consequence of retrieving the HTML should be treated the same
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If the HTML is being treated transparently then external stylesheets retrieved as a consequence of retrieving the HTML should be treated the same
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to wonder if we argued against "derived transformation" as it imposed a page model on HTTP where none existed before.
ed: at the time, we were imposing that model on a specific feature (the no-transform directive). Here we're not saying it's linked to that...
francois: i'm confused... I can
see examples where we might want to change CSS (e.g. absolute
positions of resources).
... we're talking about external stylesheets in general, not
handheld ones.
jo: what about recursively referenced stylesheets?
ed: ALL or "handheld" would be the one to work on
jo: how far should this go?
ed: as far as the recursion goes.
jo: what about stylesheets that are referenced from stylesheets that are themselves references as "all" or "handheld" - do they inherit properties?
ed: logically, yes.
jo: I'd like us not to take a resolution on this without considering our previous decision. There are caching implications here too, and indefinite numbers of recursively referenced stylesheets.
+1
<francois> +1
<brucel> +1
<yeliz> +1
<SeanP> It does sound like we need to think about this a bit.
<SeanP> I think that is correct.
francois: another question on
handheld and all. One part is about having the "link
alternate"... we agreed not to have "all" mentioned in the list
of mandatory heuristics (for reasons I can't remember).
... The same reasons should apply here as well.
... we should dig into the archives.
<EdC> Is there also a recursion problem with alternate links?
<jo> ISSUE: with reference to Eduardo's point about linked stylesheets, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0011.html, we need to review in the light of an earlier decision on images and possibly aslo in light of a recursion problem with link rel="alternate" (per discussion of meeting on 12th May)
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-298 - With reference to Eduardo's point about linked stylesheets, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0011.html, we need to review in the light of an earlier decision on images and possibly aslo in light of a recursion problem with link rel="alternate" (per discussion of meeting on 12th May) ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/298/edit .
jo: anything?
<brucel> nah
<yeliz> no from me as well
<brucel> Bye, kisses all
<jo> [bye]
<EdC> bye