IRC log of bpwg on 2010-02-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:27:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:27:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-bpwg-irc
14:27:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:27:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:27:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:27:58 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM already started
14:27:59 [trackbot]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:27:59 [trackbot]
Date: 02 February 2010
14:28:24 [francois]
Chair: Jo
14:28:40 [francois]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Feb/0000.html
14:29:40 [francois]
Regrets: tomhume, miguel, nacho, kai
14:29:59 [Zakim]
+??P5
14:30:12 [jo]
zakim, ??P5 is me
14:30:12 [Zakim]
+jo; got it
14:30:14 [DKA]
DKA has joined #bpwg
14:30:25 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #bpwg
14:30:35 [adam]
zakim, code ?
14:30:35 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), adam
14:30:47 [Zakim]
+francois
14:30:50 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
14:31:16 [EdC]
EdC has joined #bpwg
14:31:23 [Zakim]
+adam
14:31:48 [Zakim]
+EdC
14:32:01 [Zakim]
+DKA
14:32:06 [DKA]
zakim, who is here?
14:32:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P3, jo, francois, adam, EdC, DKA
14:32:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see EdC, achuter, adam, DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, brucel, yeliz, francois, trackbot
14:32:12 [francois]
zakim, mute me
14:32:14 [Zakim]
+Alan_Chuter
14:32:14 [Zakim]
francois should now be muted
14:33:15 [brucel]
probably
14:33:18 [francois]
zakim, ??P3 is brucel
14:33:18 [Zakim]
+brucel; got it
14:33:56 [Zakim]
+??P11
14:34:01 [DKA]
Scribe: Dan
14:34:04 [yeliz]
zakim, ??P11 is yeliz
14:34:04 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
14:34:05 [DKA]
ScribeNick: DKA
14:34:08 [yeliz]
zakim, mute me
14:34:08 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
14:34:29 [Zakim]
-yeliz
14:34:30 [DKA]
Topic: BP2
14:34:30 [francois]
ack me
14:34:52 [DKA]
Francois: The spec is ready to ship. We need to organize a transition call.
14:35:10 [DKA]
Francois: I prepared an implementation report template for MWABP.
14:35:34 [DKA]
Francois: Just waiting for the transition call to happen.
14:36:12 [Zakim]
+??P11
14:36:16 [DKA]
Francois: (on what is a transition call) it's an internal review by the W3C Management to approve the transition of the specification to Candidate Recommendation.
14:36:20 [yeliz]
zakim, ??P11 is yeliz
14:36:20 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
14:36:25 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
14:36:25 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
14:36:31 [DKA]
Jo: (inaudible)
14:36:47 [EdC]
+q
14:36:52 [jo]
ack ed
14:37:02 [DKA]
Jo: The transition requires a formal review.
14:37:29 [DKA]
EdC: Does that mean in principle the [transition] can be rejected?
14:37:38 [DKA]
Francois: Yes - documented in the process document.
14:38:16 [DKA]
Francois: It doesn't happen often. We should be prepared to defend is the review by the external world.
14:38:35 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports Process document
14:38:44 [francois]
q+
14:38:52 [jo]
ack f
14:39:29 [DKA]
Francois: There is one potential change we might need to make. On "how to implement the best practice: cache resources".
14:39:30 [DKA]
q?
14:39:39 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0013.html How to implement "cache resources"
14:40:10 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20100114#bp-conserve-fingerprint Cache resources BP in MWABP
14:41:02 [DKA]
Adam: I remember seeing the thread - I don't know what we use. I think we use hashcode - that will change when the resource changes - use the timestamp on the resource. Is there a standard hashing algorithm?
14:41:28 [DKA]
Jo: Someone did say that because the same resource may be served in different forms that just using the timestamp may not be enough.
14:42:04 [EdC]
I believe there were actually _TWO_ issues in the comments: (a) is the cache of just the HTTP header/transaction meta-information or of the entire resource itself. (b) if the latter, what is the recommended technical solution for a hash mechanism?
14:42:16 [DKA]
Adam: This is only to be seen by the local cache of any given browser. Maybe "which version of the resource" and its timestamp would be adaquate.
14:42:34 [DKA]
Francois: If we plan to update the BP then we should do it right now, before the transition call.
14:43:02 [DKA]
Francois: it's only in the "how to do it" section which is just an example.
14:43:15 [DKA]
Adam: We could add a bullet point to the description.
14:43:51 [EdC]
q+
14:44:05 [DKA]
Francois: It doesn't strike me as substantive so it can wait... We can make it still in the future.
14:44:12 [jo]
ack ed
14:44:29 [DKA]
Jo: let's note this and see if we get any more [similarly sized] changes.
14:45:01 [DKA]
EdC: 2 things - what the hash should be on and what technique to use to make the hash.
14:45:20 [DKA]
Adam: I think we can say that metadata is quite sufficient. We could hold off adding that clarification until later.
14:45:39 [DKA]
Jo: I think we just leave it for now and see if we get any other points of clarification.
14:45:45 [DKA]
Topic: CT Guidelines
14:46:03 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125.html CT guidelines version 1.x
14:46:08 [DKA]
Jo: ct guidelines 1x version published on monday last week. Francois sent some comments (thanks!)
14:46:13 [jo]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0023.html Francois's comments
14:46:39 [DKA]
Jo: Francois?
14:47:41 [DKA]
Jo: If it makes your life easier then why don't we agree to take the example out of normative language.
14:48:04 [EdC]
Just reply "header field must be added" in the example by "header field is added"
14:48:26 [DKA]
Francois: I don't mind having this normative duplication in there. We understand it's not an additional guideline.
14:48:38 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-original-headers section 4.1.5.5
14:48:41 [jo]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125.html#sec-original-headers the offending example
14:49:01 [EdC]
Just replace "header field must be added" in the example by "header field is added", and all should be well...
14:49:14 [DKA]
Jo: Change "must" for "would."
14:49:18 [DKA]
Francois: Fine.
14:49:26 [DKA]
Jo: (per EdC's suggestion)
14:49:54 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Replace "must" with "would" in example under 4.1.5.5
14:49:58 [EdC]
+1
14:50:00 [DKA]
+1
14:50:03 [francois]
+1
14:50:13 [DKA]
RESOLUTION: Replace "must" with "would" in example under 4.1.5.5
14:50:32 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-additional-headers offending repetition
14:50:59 [DKA]
Francois: Again - repetition for emphasis.
14:51:17 [DKA]
Francois: It looks weird in the conformance statement.
14:51:22 [EdC]
So you just want to eliminate the second bullet point in 6.1.1, right?
14:51:34 [DKA]
Jo: The only reason it's not 2 bullets is because of the additional info on removing comments.
14:51:41 [EdC]
So you just want to eliminate the second bullet point in 4.1.6, right?
14:52:06 [DKA]
Jo: Don't want to eliminate the 2nd bullet....
14:52:39 [DKA]
Jo: how about rewording the first part of 4.1.6.1 to get around this inelegance.
14:53:21 [jeffs]
jeffs has joined #bpwg
14:53:30 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies"
14:53:54 [francois]
+1
14:54:10 [DKA]
+i dunno
14:54:11 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:54:13 [yeliz]
+1
14:54:44 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies"
14:54:46 [EdC]
Can we place the "in accordance with RFC2616" in 4.1.6, then?
14:54:57 [jo]
as above, EdC
14:55:00 [Zakim]
+SeanP
14:55:06 [EdC]
+1
14:55:22 [DKA]
+1
14:55:31 [jeffs]
+1
14:55:31 [francois]
+1
14:55:36 [DKA]
RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies"
14:55:38 [yeliz]
+1
14:55:55 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-altering-header-values splitted guideline between 4.1.5 and 4.1.5.5
14:57:06 [DKA]
Francois: if you read the first normative statement it must be possible for the server to construct the original user agent - so from an implementation perspective and a testing perspective you cannot test one independently of the other.
14:57:30 [DKA]
Francois: We should try not to use the passive form and probably put these 2 guidelines together. It's the same guideline using different wording.
14:58:04 [EdC]
I agree with avoidance of passive form. Still thinking about the other aspects...
15:00:21 [jo]
PROPSOED RESOLUTION: Under 4.1.5 Remove last sentence of first para, insert "(see 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields)" in first sentence after "header fields" and insert " so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header field values" at the end of the first sentence of 4.1.5.5
15:00:59 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.1.5 Remove last sentence of first para, insert "(see 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields)" in first sentence after "header fields" of Ibid and insert " so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header field values" at the end of the first sentence of 4.1.5.5
15:01:11 [jeffs]
+1
15:01:26 [DKA]
+1
15:01:34 [SeanP]
+1
15:01:39 [francois]
+1
15:01:51 [yeliz]
+1
15:02:08 [jo]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0025.html Francois worries about Web site
15:02:11 [DKA]
RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies"
15:02:46 [jo]
A Web Site by any other name would be ...
15:02:47 [DKA]
Francois: I don't want to start a discussion on what a website is. I just wonder if we can define it for these purposes as a subset of the same origin.
15:03:10 [DKA]
Jo: I don't think it is necessarily though is it?
15:03:26 [DKA]
Jo: Something like www.example.com may have images at images.example.com, right?
15:03:41 [DKA]
(or scripts at script.example.com)
15:03:55 [DKA]
audio dropped out for me...
15:04:43 [DKA]
I'm back.
15:05:02 [DKA]
Jo: hrm...
15:05:33 [DKA]
Francois: if it's common that images get served from another domain then forget about it...
15:05:37 [DKA]
It is common.
15:05:54 [EdC]
Are such fine distinctions materially necessary to interpret the guidelines?
15:06:12 [DKA]
Francois: it's not going to be easy to write tests if you cannot scope what a web site is.
15:07:08 [DKA]
Dan: it has to do with scalability issues - why you sometimes server up images off of different servers
15:07:42 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In re the matter of testing and Web sites, include a note in the tests that where reference from a made from a Web site to another domain this is not conclusive of anything
15:08:01 [DKA]
(of course, this can more intelligently be done with Apache re-write rules or intelligent http redirection head-ends these days)
15:08:12 [jo]
[hope that is vague enough for everyone]
15:08:25 [SeanP]
Here's an example: Images on yahoo.com come from l.yimg.com and d.yimg.com
15:08:46 [jo]
that was what I was thinking of SeanP
15:09:04 [DKA]
Francois: I'd prefer that we not touch the existing text?
15:09:05 [EdC]
I am puzzled. Isn't there some form of useful, formal, and robust definition in a W3C glossary of some sort?
15:09:11 [DKA]
Jo: Francois what can we do?
15:09:18 [DKA]
Francois: Nothing - just forget about my comment.
15:09:38 [DKA]
I suggest a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.
15:10:47 [DKA]
You could say "anything that is an included resource for a web page constitutes the same website"
15:11:01 [DKA]
s/You/Jo: You/
15:11:21 [DKA]
Francois: The point is not so much about included resources but about links.
15:12:31 [DKA]
Francois: Honestly I don't think we could be more precise here. We could say for links it's the same origin but for included resources it's not necessary.
15:13:46 [DKA]
Dan: So no action required?
15:13:52 [DKA]
Francois: yes.
15:14:02 [jo]
Upshot is that Francois will take a pragmatic stance on this, ref included resource and "same domain" for linked resources
15:14:31 [francois]
q+
15:14:37 [jo]
ack f
15:15:18 [DKA]
Francois: Might be a bit early now but: I kicked off the work on the CT test suite. I have not included: I won't be able to take the lead on that work. Someone needs to step up and take on the leadership.
15:15:35 [DKA]
[collective heavy sigh]
15:15:40 [DKA]
Jo: Any volunteers?
15:15:42 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Dan to take the lead on Tests, OK?
15:15:47 [jo]
+1
15:15:54 [DKA]
-1,000,000
15:17:13 [DKA]
Jo: let's take it off line.
15:17:47 [DKA]
Francois: let's think about it - the work won't just magically be done.
15:17:57 [DKA]
Jo: [call closed]
15:18:13 [brucel]
hang loose, all
15:18:14 [DKA]
Jo: Let's try to move that fwd to final lc next call.
15:18:17 [jo]
zakim, drop me
15:18:17 [Zakim]
jo is being disconnected
15:18:18 [Zakim]
-adam
15:18:18 [Zakim]
-Alan_Chuter
15:18:18 [Zakim]
-jo
15:18:20 [Zakim]
-francois
15:18:20 [Zakim]
-brucel
15:18:23 [SeanP]
bye
15:18:24 [brucel]
brucel has left #bpwg
15:18:28 [Zakim]
-DKA
15:18:34 [Zakim]
-SeanP
15:18:37 [Zakim]
-EdC
15:19:01 [yeliz]
yeliz has left #bpwg
15:19:52 [francois]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:19:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yeliz
15:20:02 [francois]
zakim, drop yeliz
15:20:02 [Zakim]
yeliz is being disconnected
15:20:03 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
15:20:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were jo, francois, adam, EdC, DKA, Alan_Chuter, brucel, yeliz, SeanP
15:20:15 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:20:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-bpwg-minutes.html francois