13:28:14 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:28:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-irc 13:28:16 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:28:16 Zakim has joined #bpwg 13:28:18 Zakim, this will be BPWG 13:28:18 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:28:19 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:28:19 Date: 16 June 2009 13:28:25 Chair: Jo 13:28:28 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0042.html 13:28:37 Regrets: kai, achuter, yeliz, sangwhan, manrique, abel, nacho, tom, adam 13:29:04 regrets+ phila, dka 13:29:21 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started 13:29:28 +??P2 13:29:46 zakim, code? 13:29:46 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 13:30:20 EdC has joined #bpwg 13:30:36 +jo 13:30:45 +Francois 13:31:04 zakim, ??P2 is brucel 13:31:04 +brucel; got it 13:32:14 SeanP has joined #bpwg 13:32:20 miguel has joined #bpwg 13:32:26 +EdC 13:33:18 + +49.843.9.aaaa 13:33:45 zakim, aaaa is miguel 13:33:45 +miguel; got it 13:33:47 +SeanP 13:34:21 Scribe: SeanP 13:34:25 scribe: seanp 13:34:49 think Chaalz is on IRC only 13:35:36 zakim, who is here? 13:35:36 On the phone I see brucel, jo, Francois, EdC, miguel, SeanP 13:35:37 On IRC I see miguel, SeanP, EdC, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, brucel, chaals, francois, trackbot 13:35:45 +??P8 13:35:55 zakim, ??p8 is me 13:35:55 +chaals; got it 13:36:15 zakim, mute me 13:36:16 chaals should now be muted 13:36:38 Topic: Update on MWABP 13:36:45 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0041.html BP2 Status Update 13:36:56 Jo: Adam sends his regrets and sends a status update. 13:37:16 Topic: Update on BP 1.5 13:37:25 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2009Jun/0017.html Update from Kai 13:37:30 Jo: Update from Kai will be pasted into IRC. 13:37:55 Jo: Kai sends his regrets, is making progress, and there will be another editor's call. 13:38:09 Topic: mobileOK Scheme 1.0 13:38:16 Jo: Comments are on the latest draft. 13:38:21 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090609.html Latest Draft mobileOK Scheme 1.0 13:38:39 Jo: Late breaking proposed changes to the draft. 13:39:12 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0054.html Latest Proposed Change in response to Chaals's and others problems with the last draft wording 13:39:29 Jo: I think we've got agreement on that. 13:39:44 Jo: We have agreement on the proposed text. 13:39:54 Latest Proposed Text: " The DDC is thus not a target to aspire to, it merely sets a base line below which content providers do not need to provide their content. It is Best Practice [CAPABILITIES][2] for content providers, as well as targetting DDC level devices, also to provide experiences for more advanced mobile devices that have capabilities not supported by the DDC." 13:40:20 [I am happy with that text] 13:40:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt above text for clarification that advanced experiences for non DDC devices do not disqualify sites from achieving mobileOK, and indeed this is what we'd like them to do 13:40:31 +1 13:40:33 +1 13:40:33 +1 13:40:34 +1 13:40:36 +1 13:40:37 +1 13:40:48 RESOLUTION: Adopt above text for clarification that advanced experiences for non DDC devices do not disqualify sites from achieving mobileOK, and indeed this is what we'd like them to do 13:41:20 Jo: Rigo has made some changes. 13:41:25 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0061.html Rigo's changes on mobileOK License 13:41:40 ...on the mobileOK license 13:42:30 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo the change REZOLVED above, and edit of the link to the mobileOK License, the BPWG requests publication of mobileOK Scheme 1.0 as a Working Group Note 13:43:00 +1 13:43:04 +1 13:43:07 +1 13:43:11 +1 13:43:26 RESOLUTION: Modulo the change RESOLVED above, and edit of the link to the mobileOK License, the BPWG requests publication of mobileOK Scheme 1.0 as a Working Group Note 13:43:29 q+ 13:43:37 ack f 13:44:13 Francois: Do we need more time to review the changes? 13:44:40 Jo: Should we take a resolution? 13:44:42 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG requests publication of the mobileOK License and thanks Rigo for his work on it 13:44:45 +1 13:44:47 +1 13:44:48 Francois: Good idea. 13:44:55 +1 13:45:04 RESOLUTION: BPWG requests publication of the mobileOK License and thanks Rigo for his work on it 13:45:23 Jo: We are now done with mobileOK. 13:46:01 Topic: CT Draft 1r 13:46:17 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607 latest CT draft 13:46:19 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/guidelines/latest Current CT Draft 1r 13:46:45 Jo: A bunch of actions and issues need tidying up. 13:46:55 Jo: some new comments on the mailing list. 13:47:02 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.html Note from Francois 13:47:16 Jo: Lets start with the note from Francois. 13:47:55 ACTION: Jo to add Accept-Language ot the other than list in 4.1.5 13:47:56 Created ACTION-973 - Add Accept-Language ot the other than list in 4.1.5 [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 13:48:05 Jo: X-header fields still not completetly defined in document. 13:48:38 Jo: That is because I only applied changes up the last F2F. 13:49:04 Francois: The idea is to have the explicit list of new header fields and a reference to the production rules. 13:49:25 ...So we can bang on IANA's door to define the header fields properly. 13:49:40 ACTION: Jo to enact the resolution of 28th April ref x-device cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.html 13:49:40 Created ACTION-974 - Enact the resolution of 28th April ref x-device cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0044.html [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 13:50:18 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0046.html Note from Eduardo on ISSUEs 13:50:55 Jo: I believe that these issues are going to be discussed on this call. 13:51:21 ... (issues 285, 295, 298) 13:51:55 Jo: All of those should appear in the list unresolved issues. 13:52:27 Jo: Next up is an email from Sean Patterson. 13:52:44 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html Notes from Sean Patterson 13:52:45 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html Email from Sean Patterson about various lacunae in the current draft 13:53:05 Scribe: francois 13:53:37 jo: going through your comments Sean. Point 1 will go. 13:54:06 ... Point 2. Repeated twice. Really? 13:54:17 sean: in a slightly different form, yes. 13:54:50 jo: oopszzz. 13:54:54 ACTION: Jo to correct SeanP's point 2 13:54:54 Created ACTION-975 - Correct SeanP's point 2 [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 13:55:11 jo: point 3, pending my action to do it. 13:55:36 ... Point 4. That is correct as well. 13:55:41 ACTION: Jo to enact Seanp's point 4 13:55:41 Created ACTION-976 - Enact Seanp's point 4 [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 13:56:42 jo: Point 5. Adding parentheses. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. 13:56:51 ... The force of the MAY would be lost between parentheses. 13:57:05 sean: ok. 13:57:26 jo: Point 6. You're right. 13:57:47 ACTION: Jo to check and correct spelling of "XMLHttpRequest" as necessary 13:57:48 Created ACTION-977 - Check and correct spelling of "XMLHttpRequest" as necessary [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 13:58:05 jo: Point 7. Editorial change. OK. 13:58:19 ACTION: jo to enact point 7 of seanp's email 13:58:19 Created ACTION-978 - Enact point 7 of seanp's email [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 13:58:45 jo: Point 8. Indeed. 13:58:51 ACTION: enact point 8 of Sean's email 13:58:51 Sorry, couldn't find user - enact 13:59:12 ACTION: jo to enact point 8 of Sean's email 13:59:13 Created ACTION-979 - Enact point 8 of Sean's email [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 13:59:31 jo: let's just skip these editorial notes, you're right, I'll enact them. 13:59:48 jo: Point 10? 14:00:40 sean: I think the feature at risk was because mobileOK scheme and POWDER were not ready yet. 14:00:53 jo: so we can remove the feature at risk now, then? 14:00:57 ACTION: Jo to remove editorial note at 4.2.9 ref mobileOK and add a reference to mobileOK scheme to show how it is done 14:00:57 Created ACTION-980 - Remove editorial note at 4.2.9 ref mobileOK and add a reference to mobileOK scheme to show how it is done [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 14:01:09 francois: I confirm this was the reason why the feature was at risk. No need to keep it. 14:01:53 jo: Point 11. Will do. Point 12. Will do. Point 13. We could spend the rest of the call on that point :) 14:01:56 +1 for using subjunctive 14:01:59 ... I'll consider it. 14:02:24 ... Point 14. Will do. Point 15. As well. 14:03:35 jo: About your "another note". That needs clarification. 14:03:59 sean: reading the text, it's not clear to me what we say. 14:04:25 I can do that. 14:04:44 jo: would anybody like to pick up an action to identify all the places where user preferences are mentioned to come up with a global editorial proposal on that? 14:05:07 s/mentioned to/mentioned and/ 14:05:18 ACTION: eduardo to reveiw text and all references to user preferences and make editorial suggestion on how to clarify, taking into account Sean's points at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html 14:05:18 Created ACTION-981 - Reveiw text and all references to user preferences and make editorial suggestion on how to clarify, taking into account Sean's points at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0050.html [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-06-23]. 14:05:40 jo: anything else that we need to cover, Sean? 14:05:44 sean: no. 14:06:08 jo: ok, let's tackle the actions and issues. 14:06:17 Scribe: SeanP 14:06:18 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12 Remaining ISSUEs and ACTIONs on CT 14:06:27 Scribenick: SeanP 14:06:41 ISSUE-285? 14:06:41 ISSUE-285 -- Does BPWG feel it can write Best Practices on links rewriting in the CT guidelines? Or that it cannot be a best practice? -- OPEN 14:06:41 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/285 14:06:45 Topic: Issues and Actions 14:07:06 Topic: ISSUE-285 14:07:07 s/Issues and Actions/Issues and Actions Realting to CT 14:07:16 s/Realting/Relating/ 14:07:20 Jo: I think we're done with that. 14:07:34 Jo: Did you have a particular point on that? 14:07:43 EdC: Waiting on an action by Chaals. 14:07:54 Jo: We'll close it then. 14:07:55 Close ISSUE-285 14:07:55 ISSUE-285 Does BPWG feel it can write Best Practices on links rewriting in the CT guidelines? Or that it cannot be a best practice? closed 14:08:19 Topic: ISSUE-295 14:08:37 ISSUE-295? 14:08:37 ISSUE-295 -- It is impossible to reconcile pragmatism and expediency with good practice -- OPEN 14:08:37 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/295 14:08:40 Jo: Do we have anything else to say on 295? 14:09:58 EdC: The issue may have been dealt with. 14:10:06 Jo: I feel it is dealt with. 14:10:07 close ISSUE-295 14:10:08 ISSUE-295 It is impossible to reconcile pragmatism and expediency with good practice closed 14:10:21 Topic: ISSUE-298 14:10:26 ISSUE-298? 14:10:26 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= -- OPEN 14:10:26 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/298 14:10:48 +q 14:11:45 ack edc 14:11:45 Jo: Eduardo, can you step us through this? 14:12:24 EdC: I mentioned that CSS may have external stylesheets. Those marked as handheld should not be transformed since they are explicitly mobile. 14:12:58 ...We need to consider if there is a propogation of attributes to style sheets that include style sheets. 14:14:01 q+ to ask how this translates in terms of guidelines 14:14:09 ack f 14:14:09 francois, you wanted to ask how this translates in terms of guidelines 14:14:11 ...if a linked stylesheet is marked as handheld, we know it is mobile. 14:15:09 Francois: How does that translate to guidelines? We have probably already transformed the original HTML page. I agree with your reasoning, but I don't see how it can be made into a guideline. 14:15:31 Jo: Eduardo, what kind of guideline, if any, were you envisioning? 14:16:10 EdC: It would be in section 4.2; it would say something like "stylesheets that are marked as handheld would be treated in transparent mode" 14:16:38 Jo: Doesn't it depend on if the referencing document has been transformed. 14:17:21 ...It seems to me if you serve the referencing doc unaltered, you serve the referenced assets unaltered. 14:17:46 ...It seems that it can be useful to optimize style sheets by removing whitespace, etc. 14:18:00 q+ to say that the optimisation of presentation isn't like the optimization of code 14:18:15 ack me 14:18:16 chaals, you wanted to say that the optimisation of presentation isn't like the optimization of code 14:18:19 EdC: This is a similar situation to "mobile" documents. 14:19:00 zakim, mute me 14:19:00 chaals should now be muted 14:19:08 Chaals: Whether a stylesheet is good for handheld has nothing to do with how it is coded up. You could optimize it. 14:19:38 Jo: My view is that this is an elaboration that we could make, but wouldn't add substantially to the document. 14:19:49 q+ 14:20:01 ack f 14:20:07 +q 14:20:38 Francois: I share your point of view, Jo. Do we have real life examples where CT proxies broke the CSS but not the HTML that would require the guideline? 14:20:47 ack e 14:21:14 EdC: There is a deployment where they take out the style sheet entirely. 14:21:46 Francois: So they are changing it by removing the reference to the stylesheet. 14:21:56 EdC: The also remove inline CSS. 14:22:21 Francois: That's a problem, but isn't that already covered by the document? 14:22:39 EdC: They still might change the style sheet in ways that aren't proper. 14:23:17 ACTION: Eduardo to propose some specific text ref ISSUE-298 14:23:18 Created ACTION-982 - Propose some specific text ref ISSUE-298 [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-06-23]. 14:23:21 Jo: I'm finding it difficult to think of what to write for this. Eduardo, could you suggest some text? 14:23:31 +q 14:23:39 Francois: Why did we not put anything in for images? 14:24:04 EdC: There are a few image types that we put in in appendix C that should not be modified. 14:24:50 ack edc 14:24:54 Jo: I think that the discussion we had on images is that you couldn't establish a proper connection between a request for an image and a request for a document. 14:25:40 EdC: The result is that there are only a few image types that are unabiguously mobile. Others could be for mobile or non-mobile. 14:25:46 q+ 14:25:51 ack f 14:25:57 Jo: Let's leave issue 298 open. 14:27:06 Francois: In section 4.2.9, the first bullet point talks about a self-reference. Does the href need to be empty? 14:27:10 +q 14:27:24 Jo: Yes, I think it does. 14:27:55 ack ed 14:28:21 ACTION: daoust to review same-document reference for first bullet in 4.2.9 14:28:21 Created ACTION-983 - Review same-document reference for first bullet in 4.2.9 [on François Daoust - due 2009-06-23]. 14:28:25 Francois: I think it is OK to use a URI--someone should look into it. 14:29:37 ACTION: Jo (following Francois's ACTION-983) to make sure that a note is put under 4.2.9 to clarify what is and what is not a same docuemnt reference 14:29:37 Created ACTION-984 - (following Francois's ACTION-983) to make sure that a note is put under 4.2.9 to clarify what is and what is not a same docuemnt reference [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-06-23]. 14:29:50 EdC: There should be a note clarifying what is a same doc reference. 14:30:09 ACTION-730? 14:30:09 ACTION-730 -- François Daoust to work with jo to figure out the details of a workshop on Content Transformation -- due 2009-02-28 -- OPEN 14:30:09 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/730 14:30:09 Topic: ACTION-730 14:30:34 Jo: Francois, are we still going to have a CT workshop? 14:30:44 Francois: No, not needed. 14:31:01 close ACTION-730 14:31:03 ACTION-730 Work with jo to figure out the details of a workshop on Content Transformation closed 14:31:18 ACTION-892 14:31:18 Topic: ACTION-892 14:31:25 ACTION-892? 14:31:25 ACTION-892 -- François Daoust to prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it. -- due 2009-04-30 -- OPEN 14:31:25 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/892 14:31:26 ACTION-892? 14:31:26 ACTION-892 -- François Daoust to prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it. -- due 2009-04-30 -- OPEN 14:31:28 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/892 14:32:01 Jo: Can you do this again for the current draft? 14:32:18 Francois: Do this now or wait for the final draft? 14:32:32 ...I'll try to do something for next week. 14:32:43 Jo: Should we close this and add a new issue? 14:33:08 Francois: No, let's leave it open. 14:33:31 ACTION-925? 14:33:31 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 14:33:31 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/925 14:33:32 Topic: ACTION-925 14:33:32 [I claim that I have tests for this, and already have an action to provide them, so this action should be closed] 14:33:48 Jo: Action on Chaals. 14:33:53 Close ACTION-925 14:33:53 ACTION-925 Ascertain the availability of tests that ensure that same origin policy conformance, when implemented in this way, can be tested closed 14:34:05 Topic: ACTION-926 14:34:08 ACTION-926? 14:34:08 ACTION-926 -- Jo Rabin to inser sections under proxy decision to transform a. to specify SHOULD NOT in the presence of the features listed at http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html and b. to include the current cullets listed as heuristics -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:34:08 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/926 14:34:21 Jo: I've done that. 14:34:24 Close ACTION-926 14:34:24 ACTION-926 Inser sections under proxy decision to transform a. to specify SHOULD NOT in the presence of the features listed at http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html and b. to include the current cullets listed as heuristics closed 14:34:34 ACTION-927? 14:34:34 ACTION-927 -- Jo Rabin to tpo preface the first sentence in 4.1.5 with Aside from the usual procedures defined in [RFC 2616 HTTP] -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:34:34 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/927 14:34:37 Topic: ACTION-927 14:34:44 Jo: I've done that. 14:34:45 close ACTION-927 14:34:45 ACTION-927 Tpo preface the first sentence in 4.1.5 with Aside from the usual procedures defined in [RFC 2616 HTTP] closed 14:34:54 ACTION-928? 14:34:54 ACTION-928 -- François Daoust to progress registration of the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN 14:34:54 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/928 14:34:57 Topic: ACTION-928 14:35:19 Francois: Waiting for an update draft of the list with the update definitions. 14:35:29 [i.e. it's Jo's fault] 14:35:30 s/update/updated/ 14:35:52 ACTION-930? 14:35:52 ACTION-930 -- Jo Rabin to write something in the introduction about respect for CP prefgernces, respect for user preferences and the CP's ultimate sanction on the degree of preference they are willing to accommodate -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:35:52 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/930 14:36:04 Francois: Targetting temporary registry right now for headers. 14:36:12 Topic: ACTION-930 14:36:19 Jo: I've done that. 14:36:37 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#d2e161 Response to ACTION-930 14:36:50 Close ACTION-930 14:36:50 ACTION-930 Write something in the introduction about respect for CP prefgernces, respect for user preferences and the CP's ultimate sanction on the degree of preference they are willing to accommodate closed 14:37:05 ACTION-931? 14:37:05 ACTION-931 -- Jo Rabin to insert informative text in the relevant aqppendix describing the use of 403 in declining to server content because of security concerns or whatever -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:37:05 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/931 14:37:07 Topic: ACTION-931 14:37:40 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#sec-server-use-of-403 Use of 403 14:37:47 Jo: Done 14:38:02 close ACTION-931 14:38:02 ACTION-931 Insert informative text in the relevant aqppendix describing the use of 403 in declining to server content because of security concerns or whatever closed 14:38:12 Topic: ACTION-932 14:38:14 ACTION-932? 14:38:14 ACTION-932 -- Jo Rabin to specify what he means by the USer Agent editorial note under 4.1.5 -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:38:14 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/932 14:39:04 Jo: Deleted this because I didn't know what I meant. 14:39:11 Cloase ACTION-932 14:39:17 Close ACTION-932 14:39:17 ACTION-932 Specify what he means by the USer Agent editorial note under 4.1.5 closed 14:39:28 Topic: ACTION-933 14:39:32 ACTION-933? 14:39:32 ACTION-933 -- Jo Rabin to propose text for section 5 referring to \"reasonable terms, timeliness, of access and so on, relating to the use cases of bug determinations, testing and so on -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:39:32 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/933 14:39:50 Jo: In section 5, so it is done. 14:39:59 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090607#sec-testing Response to ACTION-933 14:40:06 +q 14:40:11 ack ed 14:40:39 EdC: One comment that was made is that this should be available on a non-discriminatory basis. 14:40:48 Jo: We'd need to clear what that meant. 14:41:24 EdC: Is there a description of non-discriminatory in the WWW glossary? 14:42:01 Jo: I get what you mean, but it will be hard to describe. It really refers to business practice which is out of scope. 14:42:19 Francois: The "cheap" thing is going to be hard to describe as well. 14:42:36 Jo: This was put in at your request Eduardo. 14:43:08 Jo: I think this is going to be challenged at last call because it is not testable. 14:43:52 +1 to remove the last sentence. 14:44:05 ...What we wanted to avoid is the problem where testable CT proxy is available to only three people. 14:44:15 +1 to remove it as untestable 14:44:32 ...I think this is going to challenged at last call and we going to have to remove this sentence anyway. 14:45:12 EdC: Can we check first if there are good formal definitions for the terms we are using? 14:45:42 ACTION: Eduardo to assess whether there is any relevant terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf ACTION-933 14:45:42 Created ACTION-985 - Assess whether there is any relevant terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf ACTION-933 [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-06-23]. 14:45:50 Close ACTION-933 14:45:50 ACTION-933 Propose text for section 5 referring to \"reasonable terms, timeliness, of access and so on, relating to the use cases of bug determinations, testing and so on closed 14:45:59 ACTION-934? 14:45:59 ACTION-934 -- Jo Rabin to try to draft another doc to the TAG about D.1.3.2 -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN 14:45:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/934 14:46:03 Topic: ACTION-934 14:47:00 Close ACTION-934 14:47:00 ACTION-934 Try to draft another doc to the TAG about D.1.3.2 closed 14:47:04 Jo: This is section G.1.4.2. I don't plan to go the TAG again because I think it would be a waste of time. 14:47:43 Francois: In G.1.4.2, it explains my point about the represention of the resource. 14:48:49 Jo: Francois, can you include this section in your writeup on the same-document reference? 14:49:01 ACTION-956 14:49:04 Topic: ACTION-956 14:49:09 ACTION-956? 14:49:09 ACTION-956 -- François Daoust to review last call comments on CT to see where the responses need editing -- due 2009-04-14 -- OPEN 14:49:09 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/956 14:49:36 Jo: Did you complete the review of the last call comments? 14:49:58 Francois: No, not yet. We need to complete these before doing another last call. 14:50:21 ...We may need to wait for replies for our responses. 14:50:39 ACTION-969? 14:50:39 ACTION-969 -- Charles McCathieNevile to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN 14:50:39 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/969 14:50:41 Topic: ACTION-969 14:50:56 To what extends does this overlap or supersede 925? 14:50:56 [in progress...] 14:51:09 Jo: Those will be release once Chaals has approval to do so. 14:51:59 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12 Remaining ISSUEs and ACTIONs prior to todays ... 14:52:27 Jo: We have 1 issue and 6 actions remaining open. 14:52:47 Jo: We hope to be able to move to last call by the end of this month. 14:53:07 q+ to talk about charter extension 14:53:21 ack f 14:53:21 francois, you wanted to talk about charter extension 14:53:23 s/remaining open/remaining open besides what we opened today. 14:53:33 Topic: AOB 14:54:04 Francois: The WG will expire soon, we'll need a 6-month extension. 14:54:19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requestz a 6 month extensions to allow it to complete its work 14:54:27 +1 14:54:37 +1 14:54:38 +1 14:54:41 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests a 6 month extensionz to allow it to complete its work 14:54:44 +1 14:55:01 RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests a 6 month extension to allow it to complete its work 14:55:12 +1 14:55:59 -jo 14:56:01 hugz 14:56:02 -Francois 14:56:04 -SeanP 14:56:05 bye 14:56:10 -EdC 14:56:11 -miguel 14:56:11 miguel has left #bpwg 14:56:12 byez 14:56:13 -brucel 15:02:56 brucel has left #bpwg 15:05:00 disconnecting the lone participant, chaals, in MWI_BPWG()9:30AM 15:05:03 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended 15:05:04 Attendees were jo, Francois, brucel, EdC, +49.843.9.aaaa, miguel, SeanP, chaals 15:31:14 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:31:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-bpwg-minutes.html francois 15:47:37 jo has left #bpwg 17:23:18 Zakim has left #bpwg