13:27:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:27:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-irc
13:27:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:27:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:27:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:27:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM already started
13:27:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:27:54 <trackbot> Date: 30 June 2009
13:28:13 <Zakim> +DKA
13:28:26 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0135.html
13:28:38 <francois> Regrets: brucel, kai, miguel, nacho, adam
13:28:38 <tomhume> zakim, who is here?
13:28:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P7, DKA
13:28:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, EdC, tomhume, jo, DKA, francois, trackbot
13:28:46 <tomhume> zakim, ??P7 is me
13:28:46 <Zakim> +tomhume; got it
13:28:55 <francois> Chair: ban-jo
13:29:17 <tomhume> zakim, who is making noise?
13:29:20 <jo> zakim, code?
13:29:20 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
13:29:26 <Zakim> +Francois
13:29:28 <Zakim> tomhume, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
13:30:03 <Zakim> +jo
13:31:11 <Zakim> +EdC
13:31:26 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
13:32:15 <Zakim> +SeanP
13:33:16 <jsmanrique> jsmanrique has joined #bpwg
13:33:18 <francois> s/Chair: ban-jo/Chair: jo/
13:34:19 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
13:34:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see tomhume, DKA, Francois, jo, EdC, SeanP
13:34:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see jsmanrique, SeanP, Zakim, RRSAgent, EdC, tomhume, jo, DKA, francois, trackbot
13:35:33 <tomhume> me ! me !
13:35:45 <francois> lovely scribe: tomhume
13:35:57 <francois> ScribeNick: tomhume
13:36:18 <tomhume> Topic: 0. Administrativa
13:36:25 <Zakim> +josema
13:36:29 <tomhume> francois: Charter request is being processed. Should hear by next week
13:36:35 <tomhume> jo: we're out of charter from tomorrow
13:36:42 <tomhume> ...can't have a call next week w/o renewal.
13:36:58 <jsmanrique> Zakim, josema is manrique
13:36:58 <Zakim> +manrique; got it
13:37:07 <tomhume> dka: we can have it, just don't tell jo.
13:37:56 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests publication of the Mobile/Accessibility documents.
13:38:28 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests publication of the Mobile/Accessibility documents as a WG Note.
13:38:28 <jo> +1
13:38:33 <francois> +1
13:38:37 <EdC> 0
13:38:41 <SeanP> +1
13:38:42 <tomhume> 0
13:38:42 <jsmanrique> +1
13:38:50 <DKA> +1
13:39:05 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests publication of the Mobile/Accessibility documents as a WG Note.
13:39:07 <DKA> :)
13:39:24 <tomhume> Topic: 1. Update on MWABP (BP 2)
13:40:05 <tomhume> jo: There's still a little way to go before this is ready for a further public draft, let alone a LC draft
13:40:11 <tomhume> ... there are unresolved questions to do with the document
13:41:28 <tomhume> ... On device capability detection, can we discuss or should we wait? Eduardo, you had some things on this...?
13:41:57 <tomhume> edC: in essence I think that it is in agreement with comments published recently in the mailing list, to make a distinction between
13:42:12 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0066.html Thread on Device Capability Detection
13:42:13 <tomhume> ... the technologies that are available and can be endorsed, and mentioning those that are emerging and stating they may become relevant,
13:42:18 <tomhume> but not committing to them as best practice in the doc.
13:42:41 <tomhume> jo: I feel the current text goes further than we should, on the basis that DPI/DPE are not fully fledged technologies, or even RECs.
13:42:52 <Zakim> -SeanP
13:43:25 <Zakim> +SeanP
13:43:32 <tomhume> francois: I agree with you on those which are not standards yet.
13:44:04 <tomhume> dka: I reluctantly agree, I'd like to be more specific so the doc is more useful and standalone.
13:44:29 <tomhume> ... what I don't like is that the current one is a little cryptic, but I don't see how we can resolve this. we can only make it non-cryptic by making
13:44:36 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove references to DCCI and DPE ans they are not mature enough to qualify for Best Practice
13:44:40 <tomhume> ... specific recommendations around technologies, which I agree we shouldn't do.
13:44:56 <tomhume> ... The wording is purposely vague.
13:45:20 <tomhume> jo: my view is that this is not actionable as written, and there's not much one can do about it other than remove those...
13:45:47 <DKA> +1
13:45:47 <francois> +1
13:45:48 <jo> +1
13:45:58 <EdC> +1
13:46:05 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: Remove references to DCCI and DPE ans they are not mature enough to qualify for Best Practice
13:46:44 <tomhume> jo: I also have a question about use of media queries, an established technology in the sense that it's been a REC...
13:46:47 <tomhume> francois: it's not a REC
13:46:55 <tomhume> dka: it's a candidate rec
13:46:56 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-css3-mediaqueries-20090423/ CSS Media queries CR
13:47:31 <tomhume> jo: it's been around since before we started BP1!
13:47:36 <Zakim> -SeanP
13:47:57 <tomhume> ... there is doubt about the implementations status of CSS media queries.
13:47:58 <Zakim> +SeanP
13:48:31 <tomhume> ... the fact that it's only a CR counts against it strongly, but we have (despite Bruce's contributions) an unknown number of implementations in mobile.
13:48:40 <tomhume> ... I don't know how you establish if they're supported on any particular device.
13:48:59 <tomhume> ...they're not recorded in DDRs
13:49:11 <tomhume> dka: iphone safari and android implement some elements of them.
13:49:49 <tomhume> jo: so 2 threads here: how widely supported is it, and is it any use in the presence of scripting to query device properties?
13:50:27 <tomhume> dka: on the iphone they use CSS media queries to see if the device is landscape or portrait. Not the best way to do this, but shows a use for what is a dynamic property.
13:50:35 <tomhume> ... screen width can change.
13:51:07 <francois> q+
13:51:11 <tomhume> ...this doesn't mean we should endorse the full media query spec, it's not implemented which is why this is a CR
13:51:21 <tomhume> jo: surely they only work on page load, not dynamically once displayed?
13:51:35 <DKA> ack fr
13:51:39 <jo> ack fr
13:51:42 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#style BP1 Style Sheets
13:51:49 <francois> [[ When creating style sheets, take advantage of the CSS media types (these may be used both in the CSS @media rule and in the media attribute of the link element) to specify styles that apply to handheld rendering. ]]
13:52:09 <tomhume> francois: in BP1 we reference media queries... it's also in mobileOK, so what are we trying to add?
13:52:16 <tomhume> jo: that's media selectors, not media queries
13:52:41 <tomhume> ... in BP1 we didn't reference media queries
13:53:36 <jo> to be clear it's things like:
13:53:38 <jo> <link rel="stylesheet" media="not screen and (color)" href="example.css" />
13:54:14 <tomhume> francois: I agree with you in this case...
13:54:22 <tomhume> ... we're missing implementations.
13:54:25 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Drop reference to CSS Media Queries
13:54:35 <tomhume> dka: I wouldn't be so query to remove references to media queries. I don't support this right now.
13:54:49 <tomhume> ... I'm not comfortable because I don't know what the status of implementation is.
13:55:12 <tomhume> ... if the latest webkit browsers on phones support most of it and fennec supports it, arguably it belongs in this doc.
13:55:27 <tomhume> ... we need more information
13:56:02 <tomhume> francois: I can ask the CSS media query folks...
13:56:11 <EdC> This actually addresses only one aspect of the issue raised by Jo. What about the other: are media queries useful and recommended as a best practice?
13:56:35 <jo> ACTION: daoust to enquires as to status of CSS Media Queries Rec
13:56:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-986 - Enquires as to status of CSS Media Queries Rec [on François Daoust - due 2009-07-07].
13:56:59 <tomhume> jo: it's open as to how relevant this is to mobile web applications, and what this contributes over and above script...
13:57:53 <tomhume> edC: it's too ... to be of importance right now. Is there an overlap of various techniques? Should the BP suggest when to use which? This bit is missing.
13:58:27 <tomhume> jo: we can't handle your comments on this call without adam being here... and is there much to say post- the list discussion?
13:58:30 <tomhume> edC: that's correct
13:58:35 <tomhume> jo: open issues, actions...
13:58:38 <jo> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14 Open Issues and Actions on BP 2
13:58:44 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14 Open issues and action on MWABP
13:58:52 <tomhume> Topic: 5. ISSUE and ACTION bashing
13:59:39 <tomhume> Topic: Actions on BP2
13:59:44 <jo> s/Topic: 5. ISSUE and ACTION bashing//
14:00:09 <jo> (20 open actions 10 open issues or thereabouts need tidyong up on BP2)
14:00:19 <francois> Regrets+ yeliz
14:00:32 <tomhume> Topic: 2. Update on BP 1.5
14:00:40 <tomhume> jo: can't do this without the gentleman from suffolk
14:01:05 <tomhume> Topic: 3. mobileOK Scheme 1.0
14:01:23 <DKA> it rocks
14:01:25 <tomhume> jo: well done BPWG, another doc created and published
14:01:37 <tomhume> Topic: 4. CT Draft 1s
14:01:46 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0102.html Draft 1s
14:01:58 <tomhume> jo: lots to do on this.
14:02:29 <tomhume> dka: we're in danger with mobileok going so well, that people might not notice. can w3c do more to publicise it?
14:02:35 <francois> q+
14:02:46 <tomhume> ... the publication of mobileok scheme appeared on the home page. We know that was the last link in the chain for overall publication...
14:03:02 <tomhume> ... but anyone reading the homepage note will shrug and not recognise the importance of it.
14:03:19 <tomhume> ... can you prod someone into action?
14:03:23 <jo> ack fr
14:03:53 <tomhume> francois: not sure we need a press release like that. Perhaps a blog post for the bpwg blog?
14:04:24 <tomhume> .. I released an updated version of the user interface for the mobileok checker. When your page is OK I added a section to give you the POWDER claim
14:04:30 <tomhume> ... you could use to claim your conformance.
14:04:58 <tomhume> ... I'm planning to write some posts on that as well.
14:05:11 <Zakim> -SeanP
14:05:22 <tomhume> jo: checker library is 1.1?
14:05:28 <tomhume> francois: not in the library itself, but in the UI
14:05:32 <Zakim> +SeanP
14:06:02 <jo> ACTION: Dan to draft a blog post on mobileOK Scheme
14:06:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-987 - Draft a blog post on mobileOK Scheme [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-07-07].
14:06:28 <jo> Topic: 4. CT Draft 1s (bis)
14:07:16 <jo> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622 Draft 1s
14:07:39 <tomhume> jo: incorporated in that draft is use of Eduardo's proposed text on fair use
14:07:54 <Zakim> -DKA
14:07:57 <francois> ACTION-971?
14:07:57 <trackbot> ACTION-971 -- Jo Rabin to adopt text proposed by EdC and Amended by Jo for the Abstract -- due 2009-06-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:07:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/971
14:08:04 <tomhume> jo: comments?
14:08:33 <francois> ACTION-985?
14:08:33 <trackbot> ACTION-985 -- Eduardo Casais to assess whether there is any relevant terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf ACTION-933 -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
14:08:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/985
14:08:48 <francois> close ACTION-985
14:08:48 <trackbot> ACTION-985 Assess whether there is any relevant terminology we can quote in respect of last para of Section 5 - cf ACTION-933 closed
14:08:54 <francois> ACTION-981?
14:08:54 <trackbot> ACTION-981 -- Eduardo Casais 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 -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
14:08:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/981
14:09:40 <tomhume> jo: tempted to propose we pull this out into a separate section. i've not made any progress on this in the last week.
14:09:45 <tomhume> ... anyone got any comments?
14:09:53 <SeanP> q+
14:09:57 <yeliz> yeliz has joined #bpwg
14:09:58 <jo> ack s
14:10:16 <tomhume> seanP: separate section is a good idea, it's confusing when spread around the document.
14:10:31 <tomhume> jo: references from the bits it's taken out of is the right thing to do.
14:10:49 <tomhume> edC: go ahead, please take into account the short discussion on the mailing list w/francois...
14:11:20 <jo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html
14:11:40 <Zakim> -SeanP
14:12:51 <tomhume> jo: action-982 on stylesheets...
14:12:58 <Zakim> +SeanP
14:13:35 <jo> ACTION: Jo to proposed text for separate section based on EdC's ACTION-981 and taking into account his refinement of that at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html
14:13:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-988 - Proposed text for separate section based on EdC's ACTION-981 and taking into account his refinement of that at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
14:13:47 <jo> close ACTION-981
14:13:47 <trackbot> 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 closed
14:14:08 <jo> ACTION-982?
14:14:09 <trackbot> ACTION-982 -- Eduardo Casais to propose some specific text ref ISSUE-298 -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
14:14:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/982
14:15:31 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:15:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html francois
14:15:36 <tomhume> jo: eduardo and I had a discussion. I still don't understand this, anything a stylesheet might have referred to might have been transformed.
14:16:10 <tomhume> ... the problem I have here is that I don't know what we can write. Eduardo... can you help?
14:16:31 <jo> q?
14:17:09 <tomhume> edC: let me try to put the converse question: if you have a stylesheet and at least the stylesheet is marked as handheld, why would it become invalid if you want to deliver handheld-specific content to a mobile device?
14:17:37 <tomhume> jo: it's more a feature of the nature of the transformation, as to whether it does or does not try to preserve as much of the original style as possible. It's not something we can say anything sensible about.
14:17:38 <SeanP> q+
14:17:50 <francois> q+
14:17:56 <tomhume> edC: then why do you think that enclosing markup marked "handheld-specific" would be transformed?
14:18:18 <tomhume> jo: the same elements may have both handheld and non-handheld markup style applied to them.
14:18:28 <jo> ack s
14:19:02 <tomhume> seanP: I'm a  bit confused too. My understanding is that if you have a handheld page, and you weren't transforming it, you wouldn't transform the stylesheet no matter what the medium type
14:19:29 <tomhume> ... and if you have a desktop page being transformed, it could have a handheld CSS but you wouldn't use that one, you'd use the non-handheld one.
14:19:42 <EdC> q+
14:20:04 <tomhume> ... so you WOULD want to transform that, if you were transforming the page itself. To me there's no need to say anything here, we've already said "transform the CSS if you transform the page"
14:20:07 <francois> [The question seems rather to be: is markup that links to a handheld CSS stylesheet an explicit mobile tag that fits in the list of 4.2.9 Proxy Decision to Transform]
14:20:35 <jo> ack fr
14:21:57 <jo> ack ed
14:22:19 <tomhume> edC: I go back to what sean was saying. if this is the intent that is correct and there's nothing in the guidelines enforcing that...
14:22:57 <tomhume> ... in it's present configuration the rules allow you to preserve mobile-specific markup but do what you like with the handheld stylesheet.
14:23:50 <tomhume> jo: so we're saying "leave stylesheets attached to mobile pages alone". But we resolved not to say the same re images attached to pages. why?
14:24:06 <tomhume> edC: because here we can say the stylesheet is explicitly handheld. there is no ambiguity.
14:24:23 <tomhume> ... if you have a desktop markup, you'll have a screen stylesheet
14:24:49 <SeanP> q+
14:24:49 <tomhume> ...
14:24:58 <francois> q+
14:25:09 <tomhume> jo: what do we do about cases like opera, which is handheld and ignores the handheld bits?
14:25:16 <tomhume> edC: that's opera's problem.
14:25:17 <jo> ack s
14:26:02 <tomhume> seanP: in 4.1.5.4, it mentions that  (...)
14:26:36 <tomhume> ... which is what i was thinking of. there's nothing on what happens if you don't transform the page itself.
14:27:06 <tomhume> edC: if you access a linked resource, you should access with the same characteristics, but it says nothing about the response.
14:27:09 <jo> ack fr
14:27:48 <tomhume> francois: it means add a bulletpoint to the list in 4.2.XX ...
14:28:12 <jo> s/XX/9
14:28:13 <tomhume> ... for proxies, there's no way to link the request for a resource to a previous request for the markup except maybe using HTTP_REFERER
14:28:27 <EdC> q+
14:28:39 <jo> ack ed
14:28:43 <tomhume> ... so the only actionable statement would be to use the value of the referer, to continue to behave transparently wrt a linked resource
14:29:12 <tomhume> edC: the other technique is for all proxies relying on url-rewriting, don't rewrite a link for a stylesheet marked handheld
14:29:48 <tomhume> ... I didn't want to include every included resource...
14:30:07 <tomhume> ... but this one is specific, because there is a marking for it.
14:30:38 <tomhume> francois: you can then have a mobileok marked up regular stylesheet - e.g. if the server uses transformation.
14:30:50 <EdC> q+
14:31:21 <tomhume> edC: you are correct if you haven't said it's for handheld, or encoded content in a media selector for handheld.
14:32:12 <jo> Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included resources refernced from no transform resource that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile) applicable should not be transformed
14:32:24 <EdC> q+
14:32:27 <jo> ack e
14:33:27 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included resources refernced from a resource that has been handled transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile) applicable should not be transformed
14:33:31 <francois> q+
14:33:35 <jo> ack f
14:33:55 <tomhume> francois: so what is the rationale to restrict this to handheld? i'm fine with it, just can't see why it's restricted.
14:34:01 <tomhume> jo: because then we drag along the image case.
14:34:12 <tomhume> edC: and you can't mark an image as mobile specific.
14:34:25 <tomhume> francois: we're talking about markup detected as mobile.
14:35:22 <tomhume> ... handheld in this case requires the CT proxy to check referer and remember there was a handheld attribute value somewhere.
14:35:53 <tomhume> jo: if it's a link rewriting proxy it could remember the link it rewrote, but this is a document untouched by a LR proxy...
14:36:15 <tomhume> ...the request on a transparently handled document will be sent to the origin server not proxy
14:37:52 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included resources refernced from a resource that has been handled transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile) applicable should not be transformed (this is applicable to non link rewriting proxies only)
14:37:58 <SeanP> q+
14:38:04 <jo> ack s
14:38:41 <tomhume> seanP: don't think this does any harm...
14:39:34 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included resources refernced from a resource that has been handled transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile) applicable should not be transformed
14:39:42 <jo> +1
14:39:42 <EdC> +1
14:39:45 <tomhume> +1
14:39:46 <SeanP> +1
14:39:51 <francois> 0 as I don't grab why it's restricted to handheld...
14:39:59 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: Under 4.2.9 - add a bullet stating that included resources refernced from a resource that has been handled transparently that are specifically noted as being handheld (mobile) applicable should not be transformed
14:40:43 <jo> ACTION: jo to enact resolution on included resources identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above)
14:40:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-989 - Enact resolution on included resources identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above) [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
14:43:14 <tomhume> jo: eduardo proposed that we have a mailing list for conformance statements - otherwise where do they go?
14:43:24 <tomhume> edC: where can you put them, where can you find them?
14:43:29 <tomhume> jo: brilliant and blindingly obvious.
14:43:47 <tomhume> ... comment?
14:43:56 <francois> +1 to the creation of a mailing-list for ICS statements.
14:43:58 <tomhume> +1
14:44:02 <EdC> +1
14:44:08 <SeanP> +1
14:45:54 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Create a standing mailing list called public-content-transformation-conformance to record conformance statements and reference from CT Guidelines
14:45:58 <jo> +1
14:45:59 <francois> q+
14:46:04 <jo> ack fr
14:46:21 <tomhume> francois: this is just to record statements, not have an entity that validates them?
14:46:28 <EdC> q+
14:46:45 <tomhume> ... we might also hit max length limits with that name
14:46:57 <jo> ack ed
14:47:16 <tomhume> edC: one consequence is that i suggest the list is for people to provide feedback on tests re conformance
14:47:26 <tomhume> francois: absolutely, it's a public forum to reply to conformance statements.
14:47:32 <SeanP> +1
14:47:36 <EdC> +1
14:47:45 <tomhume> RESOLUTION: Create a standing mailing list called public-content-transformation-conformance to record conformance statements and reference from CT Guidelines
14:47:55 <jo> ACTION: Jo to reference the conformance mailing list in the ct doc
14:47:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-990 - Reference the conformance mailing list in the ct doc [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
14:48:26 <jo> ACTION: daoust to check legality of mailing list name and maek the new list
14:48:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-991 - Check legality of mailing list name and maek the new list [on François Daoust - due 2009-07-07].
14:49:12 <tomhume> jo: I was actioned to put in a table of x-device mappings, which I did. although you SHOULD NOT change any other headers, if you do , SHOULD or MUST you record the changed value in an x-device version of the headaer?
14:49:26 <francois> q+
14:49:29 <EdC> this was also one of the points I raised in another message.
14:49:36 <jo> ack f
14:49:59 <tomhume> francois: purpose of this table was to register new header appropriately in the IANA registry
14:50:21 <tomhume> ...if we have another guideline saying you can register any x-device-header fields you like, we'll run into trouble.
14:50:25 <jo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0084.html
14:50:55 <SeanP> q+
14:51:06 <jo> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622#sec-original-headers
14:51:13 <jo> ack seanp
14:51:35 <tomhume> seanP: are you asking that even though you change some headers other than the ones you're "allowed" to, you should put x-device in for those too?
14:51:39 <tomhume> jo: that would be logical
14:51:52 <tomhume> seanP: makes sense to me. why would other headers be special?
14:52:05 <tomhume> jo: it's covered in the text, you could infer it from the text
14:52:28 <Zakim> -tomhume
14:52:41 <EdC> q+
14:52:49 <francois> Scribe: francois
14:53:02 <jo> ack ed
14:53:05 <francois> SeanP: I think the text already says that this is the case.
14:53:56 <francois> edc: Yes, there is enough room for other mappings to be used for other HTTP header fields.
14:54:04 <francois> ... We have to link it to section 4.1.5
14:54:25 <francois> jo: can we resolve to leave it as it stands?
14:55:13 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: on 4.1.5.5 add the text Outside of the scope of normal HTTP operation ...
14:55:18 <EdC> +1
14:55:18 <SeanP> +1
14:55:18 <jo> +1
14:55:33 <francois> +1
14:55:34 <jo> ACTION: Jo to add the text proposed in resolution above on 4.1.5.5
14:55:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-992 - Add the text proposed in resolution above on 4.1.5.5 [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
14:55:41 <francois> RESOLUTION: on 4.1.5.5 add the text Outside of the scope of normal HTTP operation ...
14:56:05 <francois> Topic: Same-document reference
14:56:31 <jo> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622#sec-proxy-decision-to-transform Same doc reference
14:56:48 <Zakim> -SeanP
14:56:50 <francois> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0121.html Thread on same-document reference
14:57:04 <francois> jo: in 4.2.9, we can be sure in that case that it is a same-document reference
14:57:06 <Zakim> +SeanP
14:58:14 <francois> francois: RFC3986 is pretty clear on the definition.
14:59:23 <francois> ... we should complete first bullet of 4.2.9 to say that href can contain a same-document reference
14:59:41 <francois> jo: we need to put a note that explains why this doesn't work when the content is multi-served.
14:59:54 <jo> ACTION: JO to propose text on same document refernce under 4.2.9 proposing a note to explain that this cannot be used for multiserving environemnts where more than one represenation shares the same URI
14:59:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-993 - Propose text on same document refernce under 4.2.9 proposing a note to explain that this cannot be used for multiserving environemnts where more than one represenation shares the same URI [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-07-07].
14:59:59 <Zakim> -SeanP
15:00:31 <EdC> q+
15:00:45 <francois> ACTION-983?
15:00:45 <trackbot> ACTION-983 -- François Daoust to review same-document reference for first bullet in 4.2.9 (and elsewhere where it is referred to e.g. Appendix G) -- due 2009-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:00:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/983
15:00:49 <francois> close ACTION-983
15:00:49 <trackbot> ACTION-983 Review same-document reference for first bullet in 4.2.9 (and elsewhere where it is referred to e.g. Appendix G) closed
15:01:13 <francois> edc: quickly, there was a point I raised on URI patterns.
15:01:33 <francois> jo: yes, we added a note, but it seems not to be clear enough. Let's come back to that next week.
15:01:53 <francois> ... We also have Charles' comments and proposed test to review.
15:02:00 <francois> [call adjourned]
15:02:03 <Zakim> -jo
15:02:06 <Zakim> -EdC
15:02:07 <Zakim> -Francois
15:02:07 <jsmanrique> bye
15:02:18 <jsmanrique> jsmanrique has left #bpwg
15:03:04 <francois> zakim, who is on the call?
15:03:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see manrique
15:03:22 <francois> zakim, drop manrique
15:03:22 <Zakim> manrique is being disconnected
15:03:24 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
15:03:25 <Zakim> Attendees were DKA, tomhume, Francois, jo, EdC, SeanP, manrique
15:03:43 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:03:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/30-bpwg-minutes.html francois