13:28:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:28:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-irc
13:28:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:28:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:28:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:28:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:28:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:28:09 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2009
13:28:14 <francois> Chair: jo
13:28:33 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0059.html
13:28:40 <francois> Regrets: nacho, yeliz, sangwhan, achuter, jeffs, abel, manrique, tom
13:30:11 <jo> zakim, code?
13:30:11 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
13:30:38 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started
13:30:45 <Zakim> +??P0
13:31:07 <miguel> miguel has joined #bpwg
13:31:11 <EdC> EdC has joined #bpwg
13:31:16 <Zakim> + +1.454.6.aaaa
13:31:22 <francois> zakim, aaaa is me
13:31:22 <Zakim> +francois; got it
13:31:29 <brucel> brucel has joined #bpwg
13:31:38 <Zakim> +jo
13:32:09 <Zakim> +miguel
13:33:55 <brucel> bruce here too, but characteristically quiet
13:34:11 <francois> zakim, ??p0 is brucel
13:34:11 <Zakim> +brucel; got it
13:34:15 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:34:15 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:34:32 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #bpwg
13:34:44 <cgi-irc> zakim,code?
13:34:44 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), cgi-irc
13:34:49 <Zakim> +EdC
13:35:22 <Zakim> +adam
13:35:24 <PhilA2> PhilA2 has joined #bpwg
13:35:47 <Zakim> +Phil_Archer
13:38:26 <Zakim> +Kai_Dietrich
13:38:49 <jo> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0059.html
13:40:20 <francois> Scribe: brucel
13:40:25 <francois> Topic: Final F2F
13:40:44 <brucel> Jo: 1st up; final F2F. We agreed Francois will run a poll. Francois? 
13:40:50 <francois> zakim, unmute me
13:40:50 <Zakim> francois should no longer be muted
13:41:06 <PhilA2> zakim, mute me
13:41:06 <Zakim> Phil_Archer should now be muted
13:41:43 <brucel> Jo: and we'll ask if anyone can volunteer a venue
13:42:07 <brucel> Jo: if not there, where? If not then, when?
13:42:16 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
13:42:30 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:42:30 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:42:41 <francois> Topic: MWABP
13:42:42 <brucel> Jo: Web App BP:
13:42:59 <Zakim> +SeanP
13:43:10 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090917 latest MWABP draft
13:43:12 <brucel> Adam: pubbed new draft yesterday. Ta to Bruce for comments, ta also to Eduardo:
13:43:48 <brucel> Adam: Hope to vote for Last Call? Strong objections? Eduardo raised a canvas/ SVG question.
13:44:42 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0066.html Eduardo's comments
13:46:21 <brucel> Eduardo: am not sure whether lack of DOM in canvas isn;t as important as functionality. Perhaps mention that SVG has more functionality; 2nd: note on performance, but DOM isn't only comparison point
13:47:11 <brucel> Adam: did straw poll in Google. The main difference is DOM/ lack of. Don't feel I have enough info to give a recommendation
13:47:16 <brucel> Zakim q+
13:47:42 <brucel> Adam: canvas is faster, SVG isn;t useful for making a reflection
13:47:46 <jo> q+ brucel
13:48:31 <brucel> Adam will add about accessibility
13:48:46 <francois> [There does not seem to be a real BP that we can recommend for real about Canvas vs. SVG in the end. Shouldn't we either remove the BP altogether or leave it as "use one or the other, these are cool technologies"? ]
13:49:01 <jo> ack b
13:49:21 <PhilA2> brucel: I don't know whether we can have a BP on wich SVG/Canvass you should use, but I'm not averse to it
13:49:54 <PhilA2> .. I think the matter of the DOM is important, not from performance, but if you're trying to give info then canvass doesn't conform to WAI stuff
13:50:17 <francois> [On top of this, note that Canvas is HTML5. This normally puts a dependence on HTML5. ]
13:50:23 <PhilA2> .. we can say "remember accessibility" or "remember that canvass isn't accessible"
13:50:32 <PhilA2> Adam: OK
13:50:33 <brucel> ADam: think we should just say canvas is good for decorative stuff
13:50:56 <PhilA2> Jo: So change is that we should add a comment that canvass is only suitable for decorative images as it's not accessible
13:51:03 <brucel> Bruce: ... or for supplementing info that is also on the page in an accessible form elsewhere
13:51:35 <brucel> Adam: Eduardo, what specific changes do you want?
13:51:59 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
13:52:29 <brucel> Eduardo: if we have DOM, accessibility, performance.. do we need to say SVG is inherently richer for vector graphics?
13:52:38 <francois> q+ to mention the HTML5 dependence point
13:52:55 <brucel> Adam: disagree: DOM/ canvas is more fundamental interface so you can do same in canvas as you can in SVG
13:53:10 <brucel> Jo: we need to get this sorted before LC
13:53:37 <EdC> fine with me.
13:53:41 <francois> zakim, unmute me
13:53:41 <Zakim> francois should no longer be muted
13:53:50 <brucel> Adam: I'll add the thing on accessibility as I know what to say
13:53:59 <jo> ack f
13:53:59 <Zakim> francois, you wanted to mention the HTML5 dependence point
13:54:33 <brucel> Francois: In know you love it when I mention that canvas depends on html5 - we can't move to rec without html5 also becoming a rec. (Or can we?)
13:54:52 <brucel> Jo: we#re not building in a dependence on html5
13:55:22 <brucel> Francois: if group is confident that it's OK, I am
13:56:11 <brucel> adam should we say "consider options for dynamic graphics" instead?
13:56:31 <brucel> Francois: maybe Jo's right; we're not building in a real dependence
13:57:05 <brucel> Jo: let's out it this way ... erm ... is this suitably caveated with "where canvas is available..."?
13:57:09 <brucel> Adam: yup
13:57:15 <francois> zakim mute me
13:57:19 <francois> zakim, mute me
13:57:19 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
13:57:29 <brucel> JO: next point, please
13:57:32 <francois> s/zakim mute me//
13:58:33 <brucel> Adam: Eduardo requested we add sth about media types as we caveat against them but don't mention them elsewhere. Will make change Ed suggested
13:58:48 <brucel> Jo: anything else?
13:58:50 <brucel> bruce: WFM
13:59:49 <brucel> Jo: we'll give everyone 1 week to read + inwardly digest. We'll have an editor's meeting about this doc as it's been a while
14:00:03 <PhilA2> I'm happy to come and lend a hand if that helps
14:00:04 <brucel> Adam to organise, as editor
14:00:26 <brucel> Action on Adam
14:00:26 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
14:00:32 <PhilA2> zakim, unmute me
14:00:43 <brucel> Action Adam organise editor's meeting
14:00:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1010 - Organise editor's meeting [on Adam Connors - due 2009-09-29].
14:00:46 <Zakim> Phil_Archer should no longer be muted
14:01:02 <brucel> Phil: post 11 a.m., please
14:01:43 <francois> [Note that schedule is tight, and we should publish a last call ASAP]/
14:01:45 <brucel> JPO: BP1.5
14:01:57 <francois> Topic: Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices
14:01:58 <brucel> Jo: BP 1.5, floor to Kai
14:02:02 <PhilA2> Latest version is at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090922a.htm
14:02:27 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note.
14:02:29 <brucel> Kai: doc fairly stable. How long will doc be open? when will we call it done?
14:04:01 <brucel> Kai: it has weird layout in firefox for me. Anyone else?
14:04:49 <brucel> Kai: I'll check it and clean it
14:05:35 <brucel> Jo: anticipate need for typo proofing, but we've been round block. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note.
14:05:41 <EdC> +1
14:05:57 <brucel> Jo: tarting up typos within next day?
14:06:07 <brucel> Bruce: comcur
14:06:12 <brucel> Bruce: concur
14:06:14 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests [after Thursday] the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note 
14:06:19 <francois> +1
14:06:19 <Kai> +1
14:06:22 <miguel> +1
14:06:22 <EdC> +1
14:06:42 <jo> +1
14:07:01 <brucel> Jo: congrats, Kai
14:07:09 <brucel> Kai: thank you all
14:07:24 <PhilA2> Thanks to Kai for sticking with this through thick and thin
14:07:39 <brucel>  RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests [after Thursday] the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note
14:07:47 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:07:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html francois
14:08:13 <Zakim> -Phil_Archer
14:08:16 <brucel> PhilA: legged it. "Bye"
14:08:16 <francois> Topic: CT draft 1t
14:08:19 <PhilA2> PhilA2 has left #bpwg
14:09:11 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html EdC's Comments on CT
14:09:30 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090921 CT Guidelines draft 1t
14:09:52 <francois> s/Bruce: comcur/Bruce: concur/
14:10:58 <brucel> Francois: 1st thing: user preferences. What happens when proxy don't assume that user wants the server's proposed representation without modification?
14:11:05 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090921#sec-user-selection User selection of Restructured Experience
14:11:14 <francois> s/Francois: 1st/EdC: 1st
14:11:46 <jo> ACTION: Jo to amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html
14:11:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1011 - Amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
14:12:09 <brucel> Jo: you want that to move to mandatory?
14:12:30 <brucel> Francois: yup. Jo: let's find it
14:12:46 <francois> s/Francois: yup/EdC: yup/
14:12:52 <francois> zakim, unmute me
14:12:52 <Zakim> francois should no longer be muted
14:13:09 <francois> zakim, mute me
14:13:09 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
14:13:44 <jo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html
14:14:59 <brucel> JO: I don't think it's clear; this is marginal. There was lots of discussion: is it practical or not. So can we leave it non-mandatory?
14:15:44 <brucel> EdC: you're changing the resolution from "should not" to "may"...?
14:16:26 <francois> s/JO: I don't think/Jo: re. 4.2.9, I don't think/
14:17:08 <Zakim> -adam
14:17:35 <brucel> EdC CTG guidelines: 4.2.9
14:18:15 <brucel> Jo: you're right
14:19:13 <brucel> EdC: I also added some references
14:19:28 <jo> ACTION: Jo to move text per eduardo's comment ACTION-989 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html
14:19:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1012 - Move text per eduardo's comment ACTION-989 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
14:20:11 <francois> zakim, unmute me
14:20:11 <Zakim> francois should no longer be muted
14:20:19 <brucel> Jo: Yay! x-headers. Francois..?
14:21:25 <brucel> Can someone else scribe?
14:22:09 <brucel> Francois: .. we're implicitly telling ppl that we can use any header they want, but they can't
14:23:35 <brucel> Jo: RFCxxxx allows "extensions" that follow http syntax. So we should say nothing. We need to register the ones that we add to a formal doc
14:24:01 <brucel> Jo: if you want to use an extension header you don';t need to register it with anyone.
14:24:23 <brucel> Jo: shall we  note that we've registered the headers we're using ?
14:24:36 <jo> ACTION: Jo to add a note that the X-Headers have been provisionally registered
14:24:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1013 - Add a note that the X-Headers have been provisionally registered [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
14:24:58 <EdC> So what is the message you want to convey???
14:25:22 <SeanP> q+
14:25:25 <DKA> DKA has joined #bpwg
14:25:40 <brucel> Jo: we'll note we've provisionally registered the x-headers; we're not recommending or prohibiitng doing this
14:25:41 <jo> q?
14:26:26 <EdC> q+
14:26:46 <jo> ack s
14:27:02 <Zakim> +DKA
14:27:16 <brucel> SeanP: I don't read it saying you can add anything you want
14:27:39 <brucel> SeanP: we're not recommeding it
14:27:53 <brucel> Jo: happy to remain silent on the issue
14:27:53 <jo> ack ed
14:29:00 <brucel> EdC: can't prevent ppl adding their own fields; if this has impact on CT Proxies we might want to prohibit it. We should say, for proper operation of CT proxies these are the only extra headers you need.
14:29:17 <brucel> NEW SCRIBE PLEASE - 
14:29:52 <EdC> scribe
14:29:56 <brucel> Jo: have actioned myself 10.13
14:29:56 <EdC> scribe Edc
14:30:09 <francois> zakim, mute me
14:30:09 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
14:30:15 <brucel> cheers, EdC
14:30:45 <jo> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0058.html Outstanding Points ref CT from Jo
14:30:48 <EdC> Jo: tackled a number of editorial issues, and identified some remaining points to deal with in his message.
14:31:03 <francois> zakim, unmute me
14:31:03 <Zakim> francois should no longer be muted
14:31:11 <EdC> Conformance statement: François has been circulating a revised version of the ICS.
14:31:26 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090921 new version of ICS
14:32:30 <EdC> Jo: François mentioned an issue regarding the conformance statement of mailing/making available ICS.
14:32:53 <EdC> Jo: is going to interlink CTG and ICS and put them in the same directory.
14:33:47 <EdC> François: always assumed that both documents would go along. This would entail some constraints regarding revisions of TR (i.e. mistakes cannot be fixed immediately, there is a heavy process). However, both documents are incomplete without each other.
14:34:16 <EdC> Jo: should we resolve to publish ICS as an official document.
14:34:45 <EdC> François: people please that nothing is missing (no normative statement left out). Give opinion about the introduction to the ICS. 
14:35:11 <EdC> Jo: let us give one week to review the ICS, and elevate the document to LC status on the next call. 
14:35:16 <jo> q?
14:36:08 <EdC> Jo: lingering issue is the definition of "same origin".
14:36:32 <EdC> Jo: without a precise definition, no meaningful test suite. 
14:37:09 <EdC> Jo: there is one definition proposed for HTML5 -- but this introduces a dependency to a draft that may change...
14:37:37 <EdC> s/people please/people please check/
14:38:19 <EdC> François: copy and paste from HTML5 is quite detailed stuff. 
14:38:52 <EdC> François: remain silent on the topic?
14:39:00 <SeanP> Same domain policy from Mozilla: https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Same_origin_policy_for_JavaScript
14:39:28 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We remain silent on the meaning of same-origin
14:39:51 <EdC> François: we cannot be more precise at the moment.
14:39:54 <francois> +1
14:39:58 <EdC> -1
14:40:01 <jo> +1
14:40:05 <SeanP> +1
14:42:12 <SeanP> q+
14:42:20 <francois> [ Wikipedia : The term "origin" is defined using the domain name, application layer protocol, and (in most browsers) TCP port of the HTML document running the script. ]
14:42:41 <jo> ack s
14:42:44 <EdC> François: same origin is actually formally defined: domain name + application layer protocol + port. Same origin policy is more complicated.
14:43:09 <EdC> SeanP: Firefox uses the same definition as in Wikipedia.
14:44:13 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WE define same orgin to mean matching protocol, domain and port (put suitably in RFC 3986-ese)
14:44:22 <francois> [same origin = same protocol, same host name, and same port]
14:44:24 <SeanP> +1
14:44:28 <francois> +1
14:44:29 <EdC> +1
14:44:34 <DKA> +1
14:44:46 <EdC> RESOLUTION: WE define same orgin to mean matching protocol, domain and port (put suitably in RFC 3986-ese)
14:44:54 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:44:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html francois
14:45:01 <jo> ACTION: Jo to insert above definition of same origin in the document
14:45:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1014 - Insert above definition of same origin in the document [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
14:45:11 <EdC> Question: aren't we implicitly (and abstractly) defining a "same origin policy" with the following text: Proxies must preserve security between requests for domains that are not same-origin in respect of cookies and scripts.
14:46:39 <EdC> Jo: answers to LC are required before releasing a new LC. 
14:46:51 <EdC> François: we must review the answers already drafted. 
14:47:08 <EdC> François: the reviewing process must be distributed. 
14:48:04 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ Last Call comments tracker
14:48:31 <EdC> Jo: a possibly quick way is to offload the work to Jo.
14:49:00 <EdC> François: there are some resolutions to take for some answers as yet unfinalized.
14:49:40 <EdC> François: resolutions have been taken for the answers to the last LC anyway. Going through them will uncover those that are yet to be done.
14:49:50 <EdC> Jo: what to do about the CT landscape document?
14:50:02 <EdC> François: we still reference it in the CTG.
14:50:13 <brucel> Bruce needs to leave; action from last week: we have no tests we can offer; sorry
14:50:22 <DKA> yum.
14:50:22 <SeanP> q+
14:50:22 <brucel> next week, gang. bye
14:50:31 <Zakim> -brucel
14:50:45 <EdC> François: nothing in principle prevents us from publishing as a "working group note". 
14:51:00 <jo> action: jo to recommend to group what to do with landscape doc
14:51:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1015 - Recommend to group what to do with landscape doc [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
14:51:04 <jo> ack s
14:51:30 <EdC> SeanP: the document was initially to state what was to be addressed. 
14:51:51 <EdC> Jo: however, the CTG has evolved, so the landscape document might no longer be entirely consistent with the CTG. 
14:52:12 <francois> i/scribe Edc/Scribe: EdC/
14:52:18 <francois> s/scribe Edc//
14:52:21 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:52:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html francois
14:52:24 <EdC> Jo: issues to close.
14:52:28 <jo> ISSUE-294?
14:52:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-294 -- All known methods to improve the situation of consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as examples for improving potential https content transformation if it is being used -- OPEN
14:52:28 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/294
14:52:31 <francois> Topic: Issues
14:52:44 <francois> s/Topic: Issues/Topic: Issues and actions/
14:52:58 <francois> +1 to closing
14:53:03 <francois> close ISSUE-294
14:53:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-294 All known methods to improve the situation of consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as examples for improving potential https content transformation if it is being used closed
14:53:06 <jo> close ISSUE-294
14:53:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-294 All known methods to improve the situation of consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as examples for improving potential https content transformation if it is being used closed
14:53:32 <francois> ACTION-928?
14:53:32 <trackbot> ACTION-928 -- François Daoust to progress registration of the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN
14:53:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/928
14:53:42 <francois> close ACTION-928
14:53:42 <trackbot> ACTION-928 Progress registration of the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject closed
14:53:50 <francois> ACTION-956?
14:53:50 <trackbot> ACTION-956 -- François Daoust to review last call comments on CT to see where the responses need editing -- due 2009-04-14 -- OPEN
14:53:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/956
14:54:15 <EdC> Jo: will take the work on 956.
14:54:30 <francois> ACTION-969?
14:54:30 <trackbot> ACTION-969 -- Charles McCathieNevile to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group -- due 2009-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:54:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/969
14:54:41 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-969 and thank Chaals most unctuously for this splendid contribution
14:55:09 <francois> zakim, unmute me
14:55:09 <Zakim> francois was not muted, francois
14:55:16 <SeanP> +1
14:55:26 <francois> zakim, mute me
14:55:26 <Zakim> francois should now be muted
14:55:27 <jo> close ACTION-969
14:55:27 <trackbot> ACTION-969 forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group closed
14:55:27 <EdC> Jo: François will inform us about a test suite.
14:55:40 <francois> ACTION-984?
14:55:40 <trackbot> ACTION-984 -- Jo Rabin to (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 -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
14:55:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/984
14:55:51 <francois> close ACTION-984
14:55:51 <trackbot> 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 closed
14:56:21 <francois> close ACTION-988
14:56:21 <trackbot> 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 closed
14:56:26 <francois> close ACTION-989
14:56:26 <trackbot> ACTION-989 Enact resolution on included resources identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above) closed
14:56:45 <francois> close ACTION-990
14:56:45 <trackbot> ACTION-990 Reference the conformance mailing list in the ct doc closed
14:56:55 <francois> ACTION-992?
14:56:55 <trackbot> ACTION-992 -- Jo Rabin to add the text proposed in resolution above on 4.1.5.5 -- due 2009-07-07 -- OPEN
14:56:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/992
14:57:12 <francois> close ACTION-992
14:57:12 <trackbot> ACTION-992 Add the text proposed in resolution above on 4.1.5.5 closed
14:57:19 <francois> ACTION-993?
14:57:19 <trackbot> ACTION-993 -- Jo Rabin 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 -- due 2009-07-07 -- OPEN
14:57:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/993
14:57:21 <Zakim> -Kai_Dietrich
14:57:24 <francois> close ACTION-993
14:57:24 <trackbot> 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 closed
14:57:30 <francois> ACTION-996?
14:57:30 <trackbot> ACTION-996 -- Jo Rabin to add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid inserting too many negatives, not, not -- due 2009-07-14 -- OPEN
14:57:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/996
14:57:39 <francois> close ACTION-996
14:57:39 <trackbot> ACTION-996 Add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid inserting too many negatives, not, not closed
14:58:16 <francois> close ACTION-928
14:58:16 <trackbot> ACTION-928 Progress registration of the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject closed
14:58:41 <francois> [ ACTION-959 can be abandoned ]
14:58:47 <brucel> brucel has left #bpwg
14:59:01 <francois> zakim, unmute me
14:59:01 <Zakim> francois should no longer be muted
14:59:26 <SeanP> q+
14:59:53 <francois> ack SeanP
14:59:55 <EdC> François: about test suites. The only thing needed at this point are collection of tests. Exhorting participants to provide input. The test suite is not required for a LC, but will be needed afterwards.
14:59:57 <jo> ack sean
15:00:03 <EdC> SeanP: will provide information next week.
15:00:10 <francois> ACTION-959?
15:00:10 <trackbot> ACTION-959 -- François Daoust to enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
15:00:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/959
15:00:25 <francois> close ACTION-959
15:00:25 <trackbot> ACTION-959 Enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec closed
15:00:35 <francois> [no way to do that action... ]
15:00:59 <EdC> Jo: will remind Dan about his actions and issues. 
15:01:13 <Zakim> -DKA
15:01:16 <Zakim> -jo
15:01:18 <Zakim> -francois
15:01:19 <Zakim> -SeanP
15:01:27 <Zakim> -miguel
15:01:37 <Zakim> -EdC
15:01:38 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
15:01:41 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.454.6.aaaa, francois, jo, miguel, brucel, EdC, adam, Phil_Archer, Kai_Dietrich, SeanP, DKA
15:02:01 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:02:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:20:30 <jo> jo has joined #bpwg
15:53:41 <francois_> francois_ has joined #bpwg
15:55:54 <francois_> RRSAgent, bye
15:55:54 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:55:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html [1]
15:55:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-irc#T14-11-46
15:55:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to move text per eduardo's comment ACTION-989 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html [2]
15:55:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-irc#T14-19-28
15:55:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to add a note that the X-Headers have been provisionally registered [3]
15:55:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-irc#T14-24-36
15:55:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to insert above definition of same origin in the document [4]
15:55:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-irc#T14-45-01
15:55:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jo to recommend to group what to do with landscape doc [5]
15:55:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-irc#T14-51-00
15:55:56 <francois_> zakim, bye
15:55:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #bpwg