13:29:36 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:29:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-irc 13:29:38 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:29:38 Zakim has joined #bpwg 13:29:40 Zakim, this will be BPWG 13:29:40 ok, trackbot, I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM already started 13:29:41 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:29:41 Date: 09 June 2009 13:29:42 zakim, what is the code? 13:29:42 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 +??P27 13:30:14 +DKA 13:30:19 zakim, ??P27 is me 13:30:19 +tomhume; got it 13:30:32 zakim, who is here? 13:30:33 On the phone I see ??P26, tomhume, DKA 13:30:37 On IRC I see RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot 13:30:39 cgi-irc has joined #bpwg 13:30:40 chaals has joined #bpwg 13:30:45 zakim, code 13:30:47 zakim, code? 13:30:49 I don't understand 'code', chaals 13:30:52 zakim, ??p26 is Bruce 13:30:53 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 has joined #bpwg 13:31:03 + +03531522aaaa 13:31:05 hi 13:31:07 +Bruce; got it 13:31:08 Chair: Jo 13:31:17 Regrets: Francois, Abel, Kai 13:31:23 +??P7 13:31:25 zakim, Bruce is brucei 13:31:25 +brucei; got it 13:31:32 zakim, who's here? 13:31:32 On the phone I see brucei, tomhume, DKA, +03531522aaaa, ??P7 13:31:34 On IRC I see brucel, chaals, adam, Zakim, RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot 13:31:37 PhilA has joined #bpwg 13:31:38 zakim, ??p7 is me 13:31:38 +chaals; got it 13:31:41 + +0207881aabb 13:31:42 zakim, brucei is really brucel 13:31:42 +brucel; got it 13:31:46 zakim, mute me 13:31:46 chaals should now be muted 13:31:47 zakim, aabb is me 13:31:48 +adam; got it 13:31:53 +Phil_Archer 13:31:53 EdC has joined #bpwg 13:32:02 miguel has joined #bpwg 13:32:31 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0016.html 13:32:53 +??P30 13:32:54 +[W3C-Spain] 13:32:57 zakim, ?P30 is yeliz 13:32:57 sorry, yeliz, I do not recognize a party named '?P30' 13:33:00 ack me 13:33:02 zakim, who is here? 13:33:02 On the phone I see brucel, tomhume, DKA, +03531522aaaa, chaals, adam, Phil_Archer, ??P30, [W3C-Spain] 13:33:04 On IRC I see miguel, EdC, PhilA, brucel, chaals, adam, Zakim, RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot 13:33:07 +[IPcaller] 13:33:09 zakim, ??P30 is yeliz 13:33:13 +yeliz; got it 13:33:13 zakim, mute me 13:33:13 zakim, IPCaller is me 13:33:19 + +41.31.972.aacc 13:33:21 chaals should now be muted 13:33:21 zakim, mute me 13:33:23 +achuter; got it 13:33:29 yeliz should now be muted 13:34:10 zakim, who's making noise? 13:34:19 zakim, mute me 13:34:19 achuter should now be muted 13:34:21 DKA, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +03531522aaaa (24%) 13:34:34 SeanP has joined #bpwg 13:34:52 zakim, who is here? 13:34:52 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 On IRC I see SeanP, miguel, EdC, PhilA, brucel, chaals, adam, Zakim, RRSAgent, achuter, jo, yeliz, tomhume, DKA, francois, trackbot 13:35:06 zakim, aacc is EdC 13:35:06 +EdC; got it 13:35:17 zakim, aaaa is me 13:35:17 +jo; got it 13:35:29 + +1.630.414.aadd 13:35:36 Zakim, aadd is me 13:35:36 +SeanP; got it 13:35:59 scribe: tomhume 13:36:05 ack t 13:36:24 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0016.html Agenda 13:36:33 topic: 1. Welcome 13:36:48 jo: welcome to John, and welcome back to Phil Archer 13:37:08 phil: waves 13:37:24 jo: phil was co-editor of the initial mobile web document 13:37:45 phil: here mainly in my role as W3C team member, responsible for providing training around BPs 13:38:00 topic: 2. Update on MWABP (BP 2) 13:38:22 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 ... we need to conclude on CSS spriting and multipart 13:38:48 ... and possibly something around a BP on AppCache, which is HTML5-specific - or at least technologies which involve 13:39:02 ... not downloading an entire JS package when starting an app. Not sure how to make a BP out of it. 13:39:22 ACTION-961? 13:39:22 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 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/961 13:39:23 jo: starting with multipart... 13:39:59 q+ to agree 13:40:05 ack t 13:40:05 tomhume, you wanted to agree 13:40:53 tomhume: did some research, doesn't appear broadly supported but generally agreed to be a good sort of thing 13:41:01 jo: so shall we resolve as not suitable for a BP? 13:41:02 q+ 13:41:03 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Multipart is not boradly enough supported to be a mobile best practice 13:41:06 ack me 13:41:20 chaals: say nothing, or explicitly reject it? 13:41:31 jo: say nothing I think. 13:41:33 zakim, mute me 13:41:33 chaals should now be muted 13:41:35 chaals: agree 13:41:54 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Multipart is not broadly enough supported to be a mobile best practice - so do not reference it 13:42:03 +1 13:42:04 +! 13:42:08 +1 13:42:09 +1 13:42:14 +1 13:42:16 +1 13:42:21 RESOLUTION: Multipart is not broadly enough supported to be a mobile best practice - so do not reference it 13:42:59 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 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0032.html Discussion on CSS Spriting 13:43:15 Topic: Discussion on Sprites for decoration only, thread starting at 13:43:36 edC: the point is, spriting is supported but does it bring the benefit that it's supposed to bring? 13:43:51 jo: what do we need to do to determine this one way or another? 13:44:09 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0019.html Eduardo's Point on Spriting 13:44:15 edC: entice Stephanie (Rieger) to provide figures wrt latency with and without sprites 13:45:02 adam: shall I take an action to follow up on this thread and follow up with her? 13:45:17 jo: yup 13:45:42 ACTION: Adam to follow up with Stephanie Rieger ref her comments and what the actual benefits are % terms 13:45:42 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 q+ 13:46:52 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 ack d 13:48:03 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 ACTION-064? 13:48:26 ACTION-64 -- Rittwik Jana to submit a text for section 6.2.5 on user preferences -- due 2005-09-27 -- CLOSED 13:48:26 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/64 13:48:33 ACTION-964? 13:48:33 ACTION-964 -- Tom Hume to review AtomDB for potential inclusion/reference in MWABP -- due 2009-06-09 -- OPEN 13:48:33 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964 13:48:53 jo: is there something in general to say about using offline where available? 13:49:07 dka: yes, giving an example of appcache - though maybe not telling people to use it 13:49:21 jo: adam, can you do a small BP around emerging offline techniques? 13:49:26 dom has joined #bpwg 13:49:47 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: will have atomdb looked at by next week 13:50:26 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 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 Regrets+ Nacho 13:51:30 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 ... 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 jo: why pull it into a separate BP if we've nothing specific to say about it? 13:52:33 adam: to make it more prominent? 13:52:44 jo: a BP without anything actionable is a problem 13:52:46 jsmanrique has joined #bpwg 13:52:55 adam: happy to leave as is right now, wanted to flag it as feedback I had... 13:53:04 jo: maybe insert a note to call out this point and say it's been discussed? 13:53:44 +Victor 13:53:55 adam: feedback next week would be helpful... 13:54:26 zakim, victor is really manrique 13:54:26 +manrique; got it 13:54:29 miguel has left #bpwg 13:54:43 Topic: 3. Update on BP 1.5 13:54:55 miguel has joined #bpwg 13:55:52 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 -> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&hl=en Current work in progress on BP 1.5 13:57:00 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 Topic: 3bis: MobileOK scheme 13:57:53 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090609 13:58:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090610 13:58:19 -> Jo's comments on MobileOK Scheme and the license 13:58:26 dom has left #bpwg 13:58:42 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0021.html Jo's comments on mobileOK Scheme and the License 13:58:51 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 jo: with phils changes and Rigo making basic changes and clarifications to the license, we're done on it. 13:59:47 ... we do need a correct copy of the license, despite the need for speed 13:59:58 q+ 14:00:05 ... Can the group review it, make any comments this week, and we'll take a resolution next week. 14:00:21 edC: can you remind everyone what the main issues pending last time were on mobileOK? 14:01:02 jo: phil wanted to clarify the status on PNG 14:01:28 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 ack edc 14:02:07 jo: anything else on mobileOK scheme? 14:02:27 q+ 14:02:49 ack edc 14:02:54 ... we can't take a resolution until we have a corrected final license. But we can action francois to ping Rigo. 14:03:07 q+ to offer to ping Rigo 14:03:37 q- 14:03:52 ACTION: Phila to ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise mobileOK license accordingly 14:04:17 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 Topic: 4. CT Draft 1r 14:05:04 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0015.html CT Draft 1r note from Jo 14:05:30 ACTION-929? 14:05:30 ACTION-929 -- Eduardo Casais to write an abstract for CT. -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN 14:05:30 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/929 14:05:34 jo: first point is eduardo's action 929 14:06:14 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0018.html Jo's comments on EdC's Proposal 14:06:42 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 edC: Yes 14:06:57 jo: it's now a bit lengthy, but calls out some important points. 14:07:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt text as proposed by EdC and amended by Jo for the Acbstract (cf ACTION-929) 14:07:32 brucel has joined #bpwg 14:07:49 +1 14:07:51 +1 14:08:02 +1 14:08:04 +1 14:08:05 RESOLUTION: Adopt text as proposed by EdC and amended by Jo for the Acbstract (cf ACTION-929) 14:08:06 +1 14:08:22 jo: next point is much more contentious, francois' action-925 14:08:23 ACTION-925? 14:08:40 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 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/925 14:09:07 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 q+ 14:09:33 ... 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 ... 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 ... 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 -1 to that 14:10:26 ack me 14:11:08 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 ... I've just found one! 14:11:23 ... around cross-site scripting 14:11:26 jo: and cookies? 14:11:36 chaals: yep. The cookie thing is a consequence, right? 14:11:45 jo: we wouldn't want passwords in cookies sent to the wrong site 14:11:58 chaals: the security risk is cross-site scripting. with that you can get cookies out, or whatever. 14:12:40 ... I'll find a test. 14:12:58 jo: is this new technology or old technology? 14:13:32 ... Any objections to adopting this normatively, should it pass all the tests we expect it to? 14:13:42 q+ 14:13:43 chaals: Luca does. 14:13:51 jo: he's not a member of this group, but we'll take his view into account. 14:14:01 ack edc 14:14:18 q+ 14:14:20 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 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 ... 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 ack chaa 14:15:33 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 jo: what does anyone feel about us verifying the test is adequate? 14:16:04 edC: how do we do this? 14:16:31 ... what do developers and contributors to it claim that it covers? 14:16:45 chaals: The one I'm looking at right now covers the ability to do a cross-site request. 14:16:59 jo: irrespective of this, how do we verify cookies are not sent between sites they shouldn't be sent between? 14:17:36 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 chaals: that's not the test I have right now, but I'll find out 14:18:15 jo: anyone else got comments? 14:18:52 ... 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 +1 to this proposal. 14:19:01 Seems reasonable to me. 14:19:42 ACTION: Chaals to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group 14:20:45 Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened. 14:20:45 Could not create new action - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened. 14:21:05 zakim, mute me 14:21:05 chaals should now be muted 14:21:12 [from F2F and now at 4.2.9.3 of the CT doc:] 14:21:14 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 ...mechanisms do not exist at the time of writing of this document. 14:21:17 The practice of intercepting HTTPS links is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED. 14:21:33 jo: next point is around https rewriting. we resolved this at the F2F to say (see above) 14:21:50 ...it turns out RFC2119 doesn't contain the term "NOT RECOMMENDED" so we'll need to rewrite it 14:22:02 ... the doc goes on to say what you must do if, nonetheless, you rewrite links. 14:22:07 q? 14:22:18 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#sec-https-link-rewriting HTTPS Link Rewriting 14:22:24 q+ to wonder what NOT RECOMMENDED becomes 14:22:30 qck t 14:22:55 ack t 14:22:55 tomhume, you wanted to wonder what NOT RECOMMENDED becomes 14:22:58 jo: NOT RECOMMENDED would become SHOULD NOT 14:23:00 [would be "should not" as Jo says] 14:23:07 q+ 14:23:14 ack seanP 14:23:57 seanP: rfc2119 contains "NOT RECOMMENDED" as a euphemism for SHOULD NOT 14:23:59 ack s 14:24:09 ... so no need to change. 14:24:19 s/euphemism/synonym/ 14:24:35 ack me 14:24:42 zakim, unmute me 14:24:42 Phil_Archer was not muted, PhilA 14:25:24 phil: copying and pasting stuff can trip you up... 14:25:31 jo: so action is to add this to the keywords section of the document 14:25:43 ACTION: Jo to add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of the document 14:25:43 Created ACTION-968 - Add NOT RECOMMENDED to the rfc2119 section of the document [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-16]. 14:26:17 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... comments? 14:27:48 Topic: AOB and ISSUE and ACTION bashing 14:27:50 jo: anyone? 14:27:51 [I haven't seen the explicit list of new X-Device- HTTP headers in the doc, is it normal?] 14:28:18 [yes, francois, I think I inserted text, per the resolution] 14:28:35 [wel,, I *hope* so anyway] 14:28:41 -achuter 14:29:21 Topic: ACTIONS 14:29:23 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open 14:29:33 [ok, I'll have a closer look and will follow up on the mailing-list if needed] 14:29:35 ACTION-694? 14:29:57 jsmanrique has left #bpwg 14:30:15 jsmanrique has joined #bpwg 14:30:34 -Phil_Archer 14:30:49 dka: this one was overtaken by events. I think this one needs closing. 14:30:54 close ACTION-694 14:30:59 Getting info on ACTION-694 failed - alert sysreq of a possible bug 14:31:44 ACTION-783? 14:32:21 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 close ACTION-783 14:32:54 ACTION-783? 14:33:02 dka: ACTION-787 not done. Still relevant, needs to be done. I'll do it. 14:33:04 ACTION-787? 14:33:32 dka: did this, it didn't result in anything useful. i think it needs closing. 14:33:36 ACTION-788? 14:33:46 Close ACTION-788 14:34:24 adam: suspect ACTION-794 relates to MVC for web apps 14:34:41 jo: we'll leave ACTION-794 open 14:34:59 jo: ACTION-796 on dan 14:35:03 have a meeting - bye 14:35:08 dka: not yet complete. hasn't been the right time to do it. 14:35:18 jo: we'll leave 796 open 14:35:22 -brucel 14:35:46 Close ACTION-797 14:35:51 jo: suggest we close 820 in jeffs absence, because it's reaching a conclusion anyway. alan, yeliz? 14:36:01 ... hear no objection 14:36:07 no objection 14:36:16 s/Close ACTION-797/Close ACTION-820 14:36:49 ACTION-855? 14:37:31 jo: action-870 14:37:34 ACTION-870? 14:37:37 dka: not done. keep it open. 14:37:50 jo: action-873 on dan 14:38:23 dka: same as the other one. 14:38:34 Close ACTION-877 14:38:36 jo: 877 is francois' but I think we can close it, done. 14:39:09 zakim, unmute yeliz 14:39:09 yeliz should no longer be muted 14:39:20 jo: 892 is on conformance, francois did this but it's pending review. 14:39:34 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0081.html Alan's list 14:39:45 ACTION-894? 14:39:58 jo: 894 is on adam. 14:40:05 adam: I reviewed this OOB. It's about accessibility. 14:40:16 ... probably still relevant. 14:40:47 brucel ... still on call? 14:40:55 ACTION-898 14:41:19 jo: 905 on dan. 14:41:23 dka: not done, leave it open. 14:42:00 jo: 906 on adam. 14:42:15 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 jo: let's close it then. 14:42:19 Close ACTION-906 14:42:47 Close ACTION-909 14:42:49 yeliz: i think 909 can be closed 14:42:50 -chaals 14:43:14 jo: 913 we can close? 14:43:17 Close ACTION-913 14:43:20 [Bruce claims to have completed action 898, btw] 14:43:20 zakim, mute yeliz 14:43:20 yeliz should now be muted 14:43:46 um... 14:43:57 jo: 918... dan? 14:44:05 sorry all, had to dash out 14:44:30 jo: 919, adam? 14:44:33 adam: done and resolved. 14:44:41 CLOSE ACTION-919 14:44:44 there was an action on me, Chaals pinged to say 14:44:55 jo: 920 on dan... 14:45:25 dan: got bryan here now. this is related to mwabp? tempted to close it. 14:45:28 Close ACTION-920 14:45:40 Close ACTION-921 14:46:09 Close ACTION-923 14:47:19 Close ACTION-929 14:48:30 Close ACTION-952 14:48:54 Close ACTION-953 14:49:17 Close ACTION-954 14:50:46 Close ACTION-961 14:51:01 Close ACTION-963 14:51:35 Close ACTION-965 14:52:14 jo: aob? 14:52:34 bye 14:52:38 bye 14:52:39 -adam 14:52:39 bye 14:52:40 -jo 14:52:40 bye all 14:52:40 -tomhume 14:52:42 -DKA 14:52:47 -manrique 14:52:47 -SeanP 14:52:48 miguel has left #bpwg 14:52:49 -miguel 14:52:51 -yeliz 14:52:53 RRSAgent make logs public 14:52:55 -EdC 14:52:56 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended 14:52:57 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 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:53:13 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:53:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-bpwg-minutes.html jo 14:56:44 s/RRSAgent make logs public// 14:56:56