IRC log of bpwg on 2009-06-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:29:36 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:29:36 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc
13:29:38 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
13:29:38 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:29:40 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:29:40 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot, I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM already started
13:29:41 [trackbot]: Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:29:41 [trackbot]: Date: 09 June 2009
13:29:42 [tomhume]: zakim, what is the code?
13:29:42 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), tomhume
13:30:08 [Zakim]: +??P27
13:30:14 [Zakim]: +DKA
13:30:19 [tomhume]: zakim, ??P27 is me
13:30:19 [Zakim]: +tomhume; got it
13:30:32 [DKA]: zakim, who is here?
13:30:33 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ??P26, tomhume, DKA
13:30:37 [Zakim]: On IRC I see RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot
13:30:39 [cgi-irc]: cgi-irc has joined #bpwg
13:30:40 [chaals]: chaals has joined #bpwg
13:30:45 [chaals]: zakim, code
13:30:47 [chaals]: zakim, code?
13:30:49 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'code', chaals
13:30:52 [DKA]: zakim, ??p26 is Bruce
13:30:53 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chaals
13:30:55 [brucel]: brucel has joined #bpwg
13:31:03 [Zakim]: + +03531522aaaa
13:31:05 [brucel]: hi
13:31:07 [Zakim]: +Bruce; got it
13:31:08 [jo]: Chair: Jo
13:31:17 [jo]: Regrets: Francois, Abel, Kai
13:31:23 [Zakim]: +??P7
13:31:25 [DKA]: zakim, Bruce is brucei
13:31:25 [Zakim]: +brucei; got it
13:31:32 [DKA]: zakim, who's here?
13:31:32 [Zakim]: On the phone I see brucei, tomhume, DKA, +03531522aaaa, ??P7
13:31:34 [Zakim]: On IRC I see brucel, chaals, adam, Zakim, RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot
13:31:37 [PhilA]: PhilA has joined #bpwg
13:31:38 [chaals]: zakim, ??p7 is me
13:31:38 [Zakim]: +chaals; got it
13:31:41 [Zakim]: + +0207881aabb
13:31:42 [jo]: zakim, brucei is really brucel
13:31:42 [Zakim]: +brucel; got it
13:31:46 [chaals]: zakim, mute me
13:31:46 [Zakim]: chaals should now be muted
13:31:47 [adam]: zakim, aabb is me
13:31:48 [Zakim]: +adam; got it
13:31:53 [Zakim]: +Phil_Archer
13:31:53 [EdC]: EdC has joined #bpwg
13:32:02 [miguel]: miguel has joined #bpwg
13:32:31 [jo]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0016.html
13:32:53 [Zakim]: +??P30
13:32:54 [Zakim]: +[W3C-Spain]
13:32:57 [yeliz]: zakim, ?P30 is yeliz
13:32:57 [Zakim]: sorry, yeliz, I do not recognize a party named '?P30'
13:33:00 [chaals]: ack me
13:33:02 [jo]: zakim, who is here?
13:33:02 [Zakim]: On the phone I see brucel, tomhume, DKA, +03531522aaaa, chaals, adam, Phil_Archer, ??P30, [W3C-Spain]
13:33:04 [Zakim]: On IRC I see miguel, EdC, PhilA, brucel, chaals, adam, Zakim, RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot
13:33:07 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
13:33:09 [yeliz]: zakim, ??P30 is yeliz
13:33:13 [Zakim]: +yeliz; got it
13:33:13 [chaals]: zakim, mute me
13:33:13 [achuter]: zakim, IPCaller is me
13:33:19 [Zakim]: + +41.31.972.aacc
13:33:21 [Zakim]: chaals should now be muted
13:33:21 [yeliz]: zakim, mute me
13:33:23 [Zakim]: +achuter; got it
13:33:29 [Zakim]: yeliz should now be muted
13:34:10 [DKA]: zakim, who's making noise?
13:34:19 [achuter]: zakim, mute me
13:34:19 [Zakim]: achuter should now be muted
13:34:21 [Zakim]: DKA, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +03531522aaaa (24%)
13:34:34 [SeanP]: SeanP has joined #bpwg
13:34:52 [jo]: zakim, who is here?
13:34:52 [Zakim]: On the phone I see brucel, tomhume, DKA, +03531522aaaa, chaals (muted), adam, Phil_Archer, yeliz (muted), miguel, achuter (muted), +41.31.972.aacc
13:34:55 [Zakim]: On IRC I see SeanP, miguel, EdC, PhilA, brucel, chaals, adam, Zakim, RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot
13:35:06 [jo]: zakim, aacc is EdC
13:35:06 [Zakim]: +EdC; got it
13:35:17 [jo]: zakim, aaaa is me
13:35:17 [Zakim]: +jo; got it
13:35:29 [Zakim]: + +1.630.414.aadd
13:35:36 [SeanP]: Zakim, aadd is me
13:35:36 [Zakim]: +SeanP; got it
13:35:59 [jo]: scribe: tomhume
13:36:05 [jo]: ack t
13:36:24 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0016.html Agenda
13:36:33 [tomhume]: topic: 1. Welcome
13:36:48 [tomhume]: jo: welcome to John, and welcome back to Phil Archer
13:37:08 [tomhume]: phil: waves
13:37:24 [tomhume]: jo: phil was co-editor of the initial mobile web document
13:37:45 [tomhume]: phil: here mainly in my role as W3C team member, responsible for providing training around BPs
13:38:00 [tomhume]: topic: 2. Update on MWABP (BP 2)
13:38:22 [tomhume]: adam: we've had a smallish amount of feedback, I have a long list of TODOs and haven't gotten around to updating the doc yet
13:38:30 [tomhume]: ... we need to conclude on CSS spriting and multipart
13:38:48 [tomhume]: ... and possibly something around a BP on AppCache, which is HTML5-specific - or at least technologies which involve
13:39:02 [tomhume]: ... not downloading an entire JS package when starting an app. Not sure how to make a BP out of it.
13:39:22 [jo]: ACTION-961?
13:39:22 [trackbot]: ACTION-961 -- Tom Hume to investiagate multipart-mixed in the context of 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of MWABP -- due 2009-05-19 -- OPEN
13:39:22 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/961
13:39:23 [tomhume]: jo: starting with multipart...
13:39:59 [tomhume]: q+ to agree
13:40:05 [jo]: ack t
13:40:05 [Zakim]: tomhume, you wanted to agree
13:40:53 [tomhume]: tomhume: did some research, doesn't appear broadly supported but generally agreed to be a good sort of thing
13:41:01 [tomhume]: jo: so shall we resolve as not suitable for a BP?
13:41:02 [chaals]: q+
13:41:03 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Multipart is not boradly enough supported to be a mobile best practice
13:41:06 [chaals]: ack me
13:41:20 [tomhume]: chaals: say nothing, or explicitly reject it?
13:41:31 [tomhume]: jo: say nothing I think.
13:41:33 [chaals]: zakim, mute me
13:41:33 [Zakim]: chaals should now be muted
13:41:35 [tomhume]: chaals: agree
13:41:54 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Multipart is not broadly enough supported to be a mobile best practice - so do not reference it
13:42:03 [jo]: +1
13:42:04 [tomhume]: +!
13:42:08 [tomhume]: +1
13:42:09 [adam]: +1
13:42:14 [yeliz]: +1
13:42:16 [DKA]: +1
13:42:21 [tomhume]: RESOLUTION: Multipart is not broadly enough supported to be a mobile best practice - so do not reference it
13:42:59 [tomhume]: adam: as a footnote... as part of Eduardo's discussion re spriting: it's broadly supported in a subset of mid/high-end subset devices. I'd say keep it in as they are. Is there support in the group for that?
13:43:00 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0032.html Discussion on CSS Spriting
13:43:15 [tomhume]: Topic: Discussion on Sprites for decoration only, thread starting at
13:43:36 [tomhume]: edC: the point is, spriting is supported but does it bring the benefit that it's supposed to bring?
13:43:51 [tomhume]: jo: what do we need to do to determine this one way or another?
13:44:09 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0019.html Eduardo's Point on Spriting
13:44:15 [tomhume]: edC: entice Stephanie (Rieger) to provide figures wrt latency with and without sprites
13:45:02 [tomhume]: adam: shall I take an action to follow up on this thread and follow up with her?
13:45:17 [tomhume]: jo: yup
13:45:42 [jo]: ACTION: Adam to follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref her comments and what the actual benefits are % terms
13:45:42 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-965 - Follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref her comments and what the actual benefits are % terms [on Adam Connors - due 2009-06-16].
13:46:50 [DKA]: q+
13:46:52 [tomhume]: adam: I've had some feedback, mainly internal, that AppCache is v v valuable to web applications (partic. mobile gmail). It feels odd to remain silent on it, although it is HTML5-specific - so a BP might generate complaints. But what do we think?
13:47:08 [jo]: ack d
13:48:03 [tomhume]: dka: strongly agree that it's important, but is it too early to talk about it? My view is that it's in the same bucket as some of the stuff in the web apps working group - I would like to see something come out which details how to use AppCache and other offline-web-app techniques, but it seems separate from this document.
13:48:26 [jo]: ACTION-064?
13:48:26 [trackbot]: ACTION-64 -- Rittwik Jana to submit a text for section 6.2.5 on user preferences -- due 2005-09-27 -- CLOSED
13:48:26 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/64
13:48:33 [jo]: ACTION-964?
13:48:33 [trackbot]: ACTION-964 -- Tom Hume to review AtomDB for potential inclusion/reference in MWABP -- due 2009-06-09 -- OPEN
13:48:33 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964
13:48:53 [tomhume]: jo: is there something in general to say about using offline where available?
13:49:07 [tomhume]: dka: yes, giving an example of appcache - though maybe not telling people to use it
13:49:21 [tomhume]: jo: adam, can you do a small BP around emerging offline techniques?
13:49:26 [dom]: dom has joined #bpwg
13:49:47 [EdC]: The tenor of the comments seems that appcache, atomdb, etc. are examples of offline application management. The BP should then be general.
13:49:54 [tomhume]: tomhume: will have atomdb looked at by next week
13:50:26 [jo]: ACTION: Adam to write a small BP on offline techniques citing AppCache as an example (and the outome of AtomDB as appropriate)
13:50:26 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-966 - Write a small BP on offline techniques citing AppCache as an example (and the outome of AtomDB as appropriate) [on Adam Connors - due 2009-06-16].
13:51:04 [jo]: Regrets+ Nacho
13:51:30 [tomhume]: adam: I fwded some feedback to the member list earlier today, re large complex web apps on mid to high-end browsers... one limitation on fast startup is JS parse time. We have a BP around minimising latency, but the partitioning of large scripts might be more important according to some feedback we had.
13:52:14 [tomhume]: ... I don't feel we need to go into technical details re how to partition, but it is valid feedback - if you're about to write a web app and do it well, follow all BPs, you'll hit problems around parse time and JS. Splitting it up is the only way to build a good scalable web app. Given this should we pull it out into a BP?
13:52:28 [tomhume]: jo: why pull it into a separate BP if we've nothing specific to say about it?
13:52:33 [tomhume]: adam: to make it more prominent?
13:52:44 [tomhume]: jo: a BP without anything actionable is a problem
13:52:46 [jsmanrique]: jsmanrique has joined #bpwg
13:52:55 [tomhume]: adam: happy to leave as is right now, wanted to flag it as feedback I had...
13:53:04 [tomhume]: jo: maybe insert a note to call out this point and say it's been discussed?
13:53:44 [Zakim]: +Victor
13:53:55 [tomhume]: adam: feedback next week would be helpful...
13:54:26 [jo]: zakim, victor is really manrique
13:54:26 [Zakim]: +manrique; got it
13:54:29 [miguel]: miguel has left #bpwg
13:54:43 [tomhume]: Topic: 3. Update on BP 1.5
13:54:55 [miguel]: miguel has joined #bpwg
13:55:52 [tomhume]: jo: there was an editorial meeting to update some of it. I had actions to make further comments in the doc. Phil has stepped forward to act as an ongoing editor of the doc. Status now is that I've finished making comments to the google doc, we have an editors meeting tomorrow morning (open to anyone in the group)...
13:56:33 [jo]: -> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&hl=en Current work in progress on BP 1.5
13:57:00 [tomhume]: phil: led into a false sense of security here, schmoozed and seduced by appelquist :) There's a bit more to do than I thought. Want to get it to the point where the group can take a look without a need for further protracted discussion - if it's contentious, it comes out, if it can be smoothed over, it stays in. Should put it to bed in the next 2-3 weeks.
13:57:53 [tomhume]: Topic: 3bis: MobileOK scheme
13:57:53 [PhilA]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090609
13:58:01 [PhilA]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090610
13:58:19 [jo]: -> Jo's comments on MobileOK Scheme and the license
13:58:26 [dom]: dom has left #bpwg
13:58:42 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0021.html Jo's comments on mobileOK Scheme and the License
13:58:51 [tomhume]: phil: changes hats. I'm involved with MobileOK scheme thanks to my work with the POWDER protocol. When talking about POWDER I take off my W3C hat. This doc bears my Greek affiliation. We've been through it, the license is the issue...
13:59:37 [tomhume]: jo: with phils changes and Rigo making basic changes and clarifications to the license, we're done on it.
13:59:47 [tomhume]: ... we do need a correct copy of the license, despite the need for speed
13:59:58 [EdC]: q+
14:00:05 [tomhume]: ... Can the group review it, make any comments this week, and we'll take a resolution next week.
14:00:21 [tomhume]: edC: can you remind everyone what the main issues pending last time were on mobileOK?
14:01:02 [tomhume]: jo: phil wanted to clarify the status on PNG
14:01:28 [tomhume]: phil: we were implying that you should have a PNG format trustmark, just after we recommended not having unnecessary icons on the screen...
14:01:50 [jo]: ack edc
14:02:07 [tomhume]: jo: anything else on mobileOK scheme?
14:02:27 [EdC]: q+
14:02:49 [jo]: ack edc
14:02:54 [tomhume]: ... we can't take a resolution until we have a corrected final license. But we can action francois to ping Rigo.
14:03:07 [PhilA]: q+ to offer to ping Rigo
14:03:37 [PhilA]: q-
14:03:52 [jo]: ACTION: Phila to ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise mobileOK license accordingly
14:04:17 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-967 - Ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise mobileOK license accordingly [on Phil Archer - due 2009-06-16].
14:04:43 [tomhume]: Topic: 4. CT Draft 1r
14:05:04 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0015.html CT Draft 1r note from Jo
14:05:30 [jo]: ACTION-929?
14:05:30 [trackbot]: ACTION-929 -- Eduardo Casais to write an abstract for CT. -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN
14:05:30 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/929
14:05:34 [tomhume]: jo: first point is eduardo's action 929
14:06:14 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0018.html Jo's comments on EdC's Proposal
14:06:42 [tomhume]: jo: eduardo was asked to put together an abstract.I agree with his points but think rewording would be of benefit. Are you happy with my rewording?
14:06:45 [tomhume]: edC: Yes
14:06:57 [tomhume]: jo: it's now a bit lengthy, but calls out some important points.
14:07:26 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt text as proposed by EdC and amended by Jo for the Acbstract (cf ACTION-929)
14:07:32 [brucel]: brucel has joined #bpwg
14:07:49 [jo]: +1
14:07:51 [EdC]: +1
14:08:02 [achuter]: +1
14:08:04 [DKA]: +1
14:08:05 [tomhume]: RESOLUTION: Adopt text as proposed by EdC and amended by Jo for the Acbstract (cf ACTION-929)
14:08:06 [yeliz]: +1
14:08:22 [tomhume]: jo: next point is much more contentious, francois' action-925
14:08:23 [jo]: ACTION-925?
14:08:40 [trackbot]: ACTION-925 -- François Daoust to ascertain the availability of tests that ensure that same origin policy conformance, when implemented in this way, can be tested -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN
14:08:40 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/925
14:09:07 [tomhume]: jo: would rather do this with francois here, but let's talk about it now anyway, I doubt we'll resolve it in one go
14:09:21 [chaals]: q+
14:09:33 [tomhume]: ... francois has determined that there are no existing conformance tests we can reference to show that same-origin niceties are observed by a transforming proxy when rewriting links
14:09:57 [tomhume]: ... The resolution we took was that in the absence of such tests we couldn't condone link-rewriting at all, never mind https.
14:10:19 [tomhume]: ... So if we stick to the previous resolution, we rewrite the doc to say "link rewriting is not acceptable", meaning all kinds of CT proxies cannot be conformant.
14:10:24 [DKA]: -1 to that
14:10:26 [chaals]: ack me
14:11:08 [tomhume]: chaals: i've been chatted to some of our security and testing guys. we think we could make a test for this. we possibly have one already, i couldn't find it...
14:11:11 [tomhume]: ... I've just found one!
14:11:23 [tomhume]: ... around cross-site scripting
14:11:26 [tomhume]: jo: and cookies?
14:11:36 [tomhume]: chaals: yep. The cookie thing is a consequence, right?
14:11:45 [tomhume]: jo: we wouldn't want passwords in cookies sent to the wrong site
14:11:58 [tomhume]: chaals: the security risk is cross-site scripting. with that you can get cookies out, or whatever.
14:12:40 [tomhume]: ... I'll find a test.
14:12:58 [tomhume]: jo: is this new technology or old technology?
14:13:32 [tomhume]: ... Any objections to adopting this normatively, should it pass all the tests we expect it to?
14:13:42 [EdC]: q+
14:13:43 [tomhume]: chaals: Luca does.
14:13:51 [tomhume]: jo: he's not a member of this group, but we'll take his view into account.
14:14:01 [jo]: ack edc
14:14:18 [chaals]: q+
14:14:20 [tomhume]: edC: I'd immediately put an action to someone on what the status of taking over tests from external parties is. Who will maintain these tests, etc?
14:14:45 [tomhume]: jo: interesting point. if charles submits it to a group in contribution, there's no IP impediment to the group in using it.
14:15:05 [tomhume]: ... on maintenance, isn't this in the normal run of maintenance of the document? I'm not sure it's a different question.
14:15:12 [jo]: ack chaa
14:15:33 [tomhume]: chaals: the group has to agree this test is valid first of all. Subsequent to them agreeing, the group can go ahead and use it.
14:15:58 [tomhume]: jo: what does anyone feel about us verifying the test is adequate?
14:16:04 [tomhume]: edC: how do we do this?
14:16:31 [tomhume]: ... what do developers and contributors to it claim that it covers?
14:16:45 [tomhume]: chaals: The one I'm looking at right now covers the ability to do a cross-site request.
14:16:59 [tomhume]: jo: irrespective of this, how do we verify cookies are not sent between sites they shouldn't be sent between?
14:17:36 [tomhume]: jo: given that you're using transcoder.mobi and a browser will think all cookies are for transcoder.mobi and not hte origin site, how do we ensure transcoder.mobi intercepts cookies correctly?
14:17:45 [tomhume]: chaals: that's not the test I have right now, but I'll find out
14:18:15 [tomhume]: jo: anyone else got comments?
14:18:52 [tomhume]: ... for link rewriting, we can put chaals' tests into the conformance requirements, if we agree with them, and we can move ahead.
14:18:56 [DKA]: +1 to this proposal.
14:19:01 [SeanP]: Seems reasonable to me.
14:19:42 [jo]: ACTION: Chaals to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group
14:20:45 [trackbot]: Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
14:20:45 [trackbot]: Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
14:21:05 [chaals]: zakim, mute me
14:21:05 [Zakim]: chaals should now be muted
14:21:12 [jo]: [from F2F and now at 4.2.9.3 of the CT doc:]
14:21:14 [jo]: Interception of HTTPS and the circumstances in which it might be permissible is not a "mobile" question, as such, but is highly pertinent to this document. The BPWG is aware that interception of HTTPS happens in many networks today. Interception of HTTPS is inherently problematic and may be unsafe. THe BPWG would like to refer to protocol based "two party consent" mechanisms, but such...
14:21:16 [jo]: ...mechanisms do not exist at the time of writing of this document.
14:21:17 [jo]: The practice of intercepting HTTPS links is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.
14:21:33 [tomhume]: jo: next point is around https rewriting. we resolved this at the F2F to say (see above)
14:21:50 [tomhume]: ...it turns out RFC2119 doesn't contain the term "NOT RECOMMENDED" so we'll need to rewrite it
14:22:02 [tomhume]: ... the doc goes on to say what you must do if, nonetheless, you rewrite links.
14:22:07 [jo]: q?
14:22:18 [jo]: -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#sec-https-link-rewriting HTTPS Link Rewriting
14:22:24 [tomhume]: q+ to wonder what NOT RECOMMENDED becomes
14:22:30 [jo]: qck t
14:22:55 [jo]: ack t
14:22:55 [Zakim]: tomhume, you wanted to wonder what NOT RECOMMENDED becomes
14:22:58 [tomhume]: jo: NOT RECOMMENDED would become SHOULD NOT
14:23:00 [chaals]: [would be "should not" as Jo says]
14:23:07 [SeanP]: q+
14:23:14 [jo]: ack seanP
14:23:57 [tomhume]: seanP: rfc2119 contains "NOT RECOMMENDED" as a euphemism for SHOULD NOT
14:23:59 [jo]: ack s
14:24:09 [tomhume]: ... so no need to change.
14:24:19 [jo]: s/euphemism/synonym/
14:24:35 [PhilA]: ack me
14:24:42 [PhilA]: zakim, unmute me
14:24:42 [Zakim]: Phil_Archer was not muted, PhilA
14:25:24 [tomhume]: phil: copying and pasting stuff can trip you up...
14:25:31 [tomhume]: jo: so action is to add this to the keywords section of the document
14:25:43 [jo]: ACTION: Jo to add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of the document
14:25:43 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-968 - Add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of the document [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-16].
14:26:17 [tomhume]: jo: if there's no further comment on this (and bearing in mind other comments from the list) let's move on
14:26:45 [tomhume]: ... can people kindly review that document, only been out 2 days. I'd like to propose a resolution for next week that we take it to last call a second time.
14:27:19 [tomhume]: ... it has a couple of dangling ends but not many. one of them is francois recreating the conformance statement, we also need to formally respond to the previous last call before we do a new one, but that's a technicality.
14:27:23 [tomhume]: ... comments?
14:27:48 [tomhume]: Topic: AOB and ISSUE and ACTION bashing
14:27:50 [tomhume]: jo: anyone?
14:27:51 [francois]: [I haven't seen the explicit list of new X-Device-<foo> HTTP headers in the doc, is it normal?]
14:28:18 [jo]: [yes, francois, I think I inserted text, per the resolution]
14:28:35 [jo]: [wel,, I *hope* so anyway]
14:28:41 [Zakim]: -achuter
14:29:21 [jo]: Topic: ACTIONS
14:29:23 [jo]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open
14:29:33 [francois]: [ok, I'll have a closer look and will follow up on the mailing-list if needed]
14:29:35 [jo]: ACTION-694?
14:29:57 [jsmanrique]: jsmanrique has left #bpwg
14:30:15 [jsmanrique]: jsmanrique has joined #bpwg
14:30:34 [Zakim]: -Phil_Archer
14:30:49 [tomhume]: dka: this one was overtaken by events. I think this one needs closing.
14:30:54 [jo]: close ACTION-694
14:30:59 [trackbot]: Getting info on ACTION-694 failed - alert sysreq of a possible bug
14:31:44 [jo]: ACTION-783?
14:32:21 [tomhume]: adam: suspect this is obsolete. i think we talked about web 2.0 technologies and decided the term was naff, but have long ago replaced it.
14:32:27 [jo]: close ACTION-783
14:32:54 [jo]: ACTION-783?
14:33:02 [tomhume]: dka: ACTION-787 not done. Still relevant, needs to be done. I'll do it.
14:33:04 [jo]: ACTION-787?
14:33:32 [tomhume]: dka: did this, it didn't result in anything useful. i think it needs closing.
14:33:36 [jo]: ACTION-788?
14:33:46 [jo]: Close ACTION-788
14:34:24 [tomhume]: adam: suspect ACTION-794 relates to MVC for web apps
14:34:41 [tomhume]: jo: we'll leave ACTION-794 open
14:34:59 [tomhume]: jo: ACTION-796 on dan
14:35:03 [brucel]: have a meeting - bye
14:35:08 [tomhume]: dka: not yet complete. hasn't been the right time to do it.
14:35:18 [tomhume]: jo: we'll leave 796 open
14:35:22 [Zakim]: -brucel
14:35:46 [jo]: Close ACTION-797
14:35:51 [tomhume]: jo: suggest we close 820 in jeffs absence, because it's reaching a conclusion anyway. alan, yeliz?
14:36:01 [tomhume]: ... hear no objection
14:36:07 [yeliz]: no objection
14:36:16 [jo]: s/Close ACTION-797/Close ACTION-820
14:36:49 [jo]: ACTION-855?
14:37:31 [tomhume]: jo: action-870
14:37:34 [jo]: ACTION-870?
14:37:37 [tomhume]: dka: not done. keep it open.
14:37:50 [tomhume]: jo: action-873 on dan
14:38:23 [tomhume]: dka: same as the other one.
14:38:34 [jo]: Close ACTION-877
14:38:36 [tomhume]: jo: 877 is francois' but I think we can close it, done.
14:39:09 [yeliz]: zakim, unmute yeliz
14:39:09 [Zakim]: yeliz should no longer be muted
14:39:20 [tomhume]: jo: 892 is on conformance, francois did this but it's pending review.
14:39:34 [jo]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0081.html Alan's list
14:39:45 [jo]: ACTION-894?
14:39:58 [tomhume]: jo: 894 is on adam.
14:40:05 [tomhume]: adam: I reviewed this OOB. It's about accessibility.
14:40:16 [tomhume]: ... probably still relevant.
14:40:47 [jo]: brucel ... still on call?
14:40:55 [jo]: ACTION-898
14:41:19 [tomhume]: jo: 905 on dan.
14:41:23 [tomhume]: dka: not done, leave it open.
14:42:00 [tomhume]: jo: 906 on adam.
14:42:15 [tomhume]: adam: I think those BPs have changed. I think this is done, it refers to the BPs as they were in a previous draft
14:42:18 [tomhume]: jo: let's close it then.
14:42:19 [jo]: Close ACTION-906
14:42:47 [jo]: Close ACTION-909
14:42:49 [tomhume]: yeliz: i think 909 can be closed
14:42:50 [Zakim]: -chaals
14:43:14 [tomhume]: jo: 913 we can close?
14:43:17 [jo]: Close ACTION-913
14:43:20 [chaals]: [Bruce claims to have completed action 898, btw]
14:43:20 [yeliz]: zakim, mute yeliz
14:43:20 [Zakim]: yeliz should now be muted
14:43:46 [DKA]: um...
14:43:57 [tomhume]: jo: 918... dan?
14:44:05 [brucel]: sorry all, had to dash out
14:44:30 [tomhume]: jo: 919, adam?
14:44:33 [tomhume]: adam: done and resolved.
14:44:41 [jo]: CLOSE ACTION-919
14:44:44 [brucel]: there was an action on me, Chaals pinged to say
14:44:55 [tomhume]: jo: 920 on dan...
14:45:25 [tomhume]: dan: got bryan here now. this is related to mwabp? tempted to close it.
14:45:28 [jo]: Close ACTION-920
14:45:40 [jo]: Close ACTION-921
14:46:09 [jo]: Close ACTION-923
14:47:19 [jo]: Close ACTION-929
14:48:30 [jo]: Close ACTION-952
14:48:54 [jo]: Close ACTION-953
14:49:17 [jo]: Close ACTION-954
14:50:46 [jo]: Close ACTION-961
14:51:01 [jo]: Close ACTION-963
14:51:35 [jo]: Close ACTION-965
14:52:14 [tomhume]: jo: aob?
14:52:34 [yeliz]: bye
14:52:38 [jsmanrique]: bye
14:52:39 [Zakim]: -adam
14:52:39 [miguel]: bye
14:52:40 [Zakim]: -jo
14:52:40 [tomhume]: bye all
14:52:40 [Zakim]: -tomhume
14:52:42 [Zakim]: -DKA
14:52:47 [Zakim]: -manrique
14:52:47 [Zakim]: -SeanP
14:52:48 [miguel]: miguel has left #bpwg
14:52:49 [Zakim]: -miguel
14:52:51 [Zakim]: -yeliz
14:52:53 [jo]: RRSAgent make logs public
14:52:55 [Zakim]: -EdC
14:52:56 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
14:52:57 [Zakim]: Attendees were DKA, tomhume, +03531522aaaa, chaals, +0207881aabb, brucel, adam, Phil_Archer, miguel, yeliz, +41.31.972.aacc, achuter, EdC, jo, +1.630.414.aadd, SeanP, manrique
14:53:06 [jo]: RRSAgent, make logs public
14:53:13 [jo]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:53:13 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html jo
14:56:44 [jo]: s/RRSAgent make logs public//
14:56:56 [jo]: rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:56 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html jo
15:00:30 [PhilA]: PhilA has left #bpwg
15:02:37 [jo]: zakim, bye
15:02:37 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #bpwg
15:02:49 [jo]: rrsagent, bye
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Adam to follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref her comments and what the actual benefits are % terms [1]
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc#T13-45-42
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Adam to write a small BP on offline techniques citing AppCache as an example (and the outome of AtomDB as appropriate) [2]
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc#T13-50-26
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Phila to ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise mobileOK license accordingly [3]
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc#T14-03-52
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Chaals to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group [4]
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc#T14-19-42
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Jo to add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of the document [5]
15:02:49 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc#T14-25-43