W3C

Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

11 Mar 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Francois, Jo, SeanP, AndrewS, Magnus, Heiko, Rob
Regrets
Bryan, MartinJ, Murari
Chair
francois
Scribe
Jo

Contents


Introduction

francois: [review of what happened at the F2F and pointer to summary]
... jo proposed an editor's meeting ... I can host at Sofia (SE France)
... who would be able to come?
... dates would be next week or the week after

<andrews> No, sorry

<SeanP> I don't think I'll be able to make it

jo: needs to be before Easter

francois: perhaps we can wait an extra week?

heiko: could we do it in the UK?

jo: need a host in the UK
... if noone else wants to attend then Francois and I can sort this out between us

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Francois and Jo to roganise work as they see fit and present group with final pre-FPWD

<andrews> +1 (and thank you)

<rob> +1

<francois> +1

RESOLUTION: Francois and Jo to roganise work as they see fit and present group with final pre-FPWD

jo: the only bits that open to discuss in that context are the bits after 3.1.4
... following resolution at F2F

Aarons Contribution ACTION-666

<francois> Aaron's contribution

francois: this is content for 2.5 control of the behavior of the proxy
... goes in the same direction as we agreed to go
... maybe inconsistent with other things we say
... question is how should proxy indicate it could transform?
... if the content has not been modified then the proxy should indicate that a transformed version is available
... how should this happen?
... I don't see how this can happen without transforming the page

magnus: there could be an insterstitial page

francois: yes, I suggested that but it would be a lousy user experience

heiko: i think it should be only done once

seanP: you could insert a little link

francois: yes, I noted that in response to aaron, but that would imply inconsistent behavior

seanP: one possiblity is some user agreement that it you wanted it you could get it

francois: the list of options should contain this as an option that the user can set
... sometimes you are looking at a page and you wish you could transform it or not
... if the server issued a cache-control no-transform the link would be missing
... the proxy MAY indicate that a transformed version is available only where it decided not to transform

seanP: further on your point about having a link sometimes and sometimes not might be confusing, I am not really sure that would be a bad user experience

rob: there is the issue about confusion and there is also the question about wanting to split the page and in those circumstances the user might want to transform in this case
... so its worth saying you can switch it off and on but saying how is probably out of scope

heiko: can we differentiate three things - leave things completley untouched, second, just headers and footers

francois: we are trying to allow the server to have a "switch off" and if we allow adding a link that is something to be avoided
... we could complete Aaron's text to say that this should not be done to pages that can not be transformed

<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: keep aaron's text as it is for 2.5.1

<francois> current editor's text

jo: Don't think we should discuss adding a link to the unmodified content to say that it could be modified

<Magnus> Transforming proxies SHOULD provide to their users an indication that the content being viewed has been adapted for

<Magnus> mobile presentation. If the content has not been modified, because of

<Magnus> server or user preferences, but transformation is possible and

<Magnus> potentially useful, the proxy MAY indicate that a transformed version

<Magnus> is available.

jo: that could appear later in the document - this section is an overview

francois: take jo's point that whatever we resolve on the second bit it could go later in the document
... magnus, would you leave out the bit on saying that the content can be modified

magnus: my main problem is that the resolution can't be left as is, as it has a number of comments
... I'd be happy with just taking the first sentence and then saying that the original content can be retireved without saying how exactly
... could also have the bit on sticky sessions
... I'm trying to look at this in the context of the document which is an overview
... [discusses how it can be worded]

<francois> Transforming proxies MAY provide to their users:

<francois> - An indication that the content being viewed has been adapted for

<francois> mobile presentation.

<francois> - An option to view the original, unmodified content.

<francois> - some "sticky" preferences to their users.

francois: this is to emphasize the point that this is just a discussion

seanp: we have talked about providing a link to unmodified content - what to do if the unmodified content crashes the phone?

francois: good point but does not remove the need for a link in the generic case, the proxy could offer a warning
... in that case

<francois> Transforming proxies SHOULD provide to their users:

<francois> - An indication that the content being viewed has been adapted for

<francois> mobile presentation.

<francois> - An option to view the original, unmodified content.

<francois> - some session settings to their users.

jo: I'd prefer to leave the normative wording even though this is less of a prescriptive section, otherwise there's a danger that the document may appear to contradict itself when it goes on to discuss it later
... I think it's SHOULD on the first two and a MAY on the third

<francois> Transforming proxies SHOULD provide to their users:

<francois> - An indication that the content being viewed has been adapted for

<francois> mobile presentation.

<francois> - An option to view the original, unmodified content.

<francois> They MAY also provide session settings to their users.

+1

<andrews> +1

<Magnus> +1

<scribe> ACTION: Jo to reword 2.5.1 along the lines proposed by Francois [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-706 - Reword 2.5.1 along the lines proposed by Francois [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-18].

<SeanP> +1

francois: additional qeustion, should we mention examples of session settings

magnus: that would be OK

francois: relates to the list of directives we removed from the document
... seems to me to be useful

magnus: examples being: never transform no matter what, only transform if absolutely necessary, transform as much as possible and so on

jo: that is similar to the list we will try to codify in POWDER as server preferences

<scribe> ACTION: Jo to include examples in 2.5.1 bullet 3 per the dicussion above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-707 - Include examples in 2.5.1 bullet 3 per the dicussion above [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-18].

heiko: I expect POWDER is for the device capability database
... it's a follow on to WURFL?

jo: no
... we have been looking at it as a way of describing server preferences

heiko: we need to capture the dependences on other projects, we need to understand device capabilities

francois: we don't want to depend on POWDER
... and don't want to be delayed by it
... or indeed the DDR
... on 2.5.2

<francois> Transforming proxies MUST provide support for control over the content

<francois> transformation process by origin servers.

<francois> These control mechanisms are detailed in section 3 (Behavior of Components).

<hgerlach> sorry quys, I have to leave for the next call:-(, cheers Heiko

<andrews> +q

andrew: are we only referring to no-transform here?

francois: the controls are in section 3, at the moment it is true that no-transform is the only control we have but maybe there will be more control by POWDER later

jo: points out that vary and warning transformation applied are both means of control

francois: I don't think we should list warning transformation applied as a means of control

jo: agreed

<scribe> ACTION: Jo to update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion and Seoul resolution on preferences [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-708 - Update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion and Seoul resolution on preferences [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-18].

francois: aaron leaves 2.5.3 untouched, do we need to say more

<SeanP> This is another place where some examples may help.

jo: not sure

francois: it's a bit useless as is so examples would help

<francois> ACTION: daoust to write some examples for 2.5.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-709 - Write some examples for 2.5.3 [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2008-03-18].

jo: I'll try to update the doc in the next couple of days

<francois> Close ACTION-666

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-666 Draft section 2.6 listing user control options that SHOULD be supported closed

[adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: daoust to write some examples for 2.5.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to include examples in 2.5.1 bullet 3 per the dicussion above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to reword 2.5.1 along the lines proposed by Francois [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to update 2.5.2 in accordance with discussion and Seoul resolution on preferences [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/03/11 16:09:13 $