IRC log of bpwg on 2008-04-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:07 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:59:07 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-irc
13:59:09 [trackbot-ng]: RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:09 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #bpwg
13:59:11 [trackbot-ng]: Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:59:11 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:59:12 [trackbot-ng]: Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:59:12 [trackbot-ng]: Date: 22 April 2008
13:59:14 [francois]: Chair: francois
13:59:23 [francois]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0035.html
13:59:31 [francois]: Regrets: kemp, bryan, rob
13:59:31 [Magnus]: zakim, code?
13:59:31 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Magnus
14:00:02 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started
14:00:09 [Zakim]: +francois
14:00:10 [Zakim]: +Magnus
14:00:13 [Zakim]: -francois
14:00:14 [Zakim]: +francois
14:01:23 [Zakim]: +hgerlach
14:01:26 [Zakim]: +jo
14:01:34 [Martin1]: Martin1 has joined #bpwg
14:01:46 [Zakim]: + +7.776.13.aaaa
14:01:55 [Martin1]: zakim, aaaa is me
14:01:55 [Zakim]: +Martin1; got it
14:02:01 [hgerlach]: hgerlach has joined #bpwg
14:02:16 [hgerlach]: hi
14:03:05 [jo]: scribe: jo
14:03:25 [Martin1]: zakim, mute me
14:03:25 [Zakim]: Martin1 should now be muted
14:03:27 [francois]: ScribeNick: jo
14:03:35 [francois]: Topic: Comments on FPWD
14:03:44 [jo]: Topic: Comments on FPWD
14:03:59 [francois]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008AprJun/0000.html comment received
14:04:01 [jo]: fd: actually we only received one comment which is pretty good going
14:04:13 [hgerlach]: I just sent the document to our Vodafone OpCos. By when do you need their comments?
14:04:24 [SeanP]: SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:04:26 [jo]: ... raises an interesting point but I am not sure how to take them into account
14:04:52 [Magnus]: q+
14:04:54 [andrews]: andrews has joined #bpwg
14:04:56 [jo]: ... basically it is about how a transforming proxy can make a valid page invalid
14:05:05 [jo]: ... not sure how we can put this in
14:05:32 [jo]: ... we could say that it should always generate a valid page?
14:05:36 [jo]: ack m
14:05:37 [francois]: ack Magnus
14:05:48 [Zakim]: +andrews
14:06:01 [jo]: magnus: the comment is that the proxy added javascript and thus made the page invalid
14:06:14 [jo]: ... think it is pretty obvious that the proxy shouldn't make pages invalid
14:06:33 [hgerlach]: q+ (new Item)
14:06:34 [jo]: ... builders should show adequate humiliy, it's easy to get this wrong
14:06:52 [jo]: s/builders/proxy builders/
14:06:57 [jo]: ack (ne
14:07:02 [jo]: ack i
14:07:04 [Magnus]: s/humily/humbleness/
14:07:14 [Magnus]: s/humiliy/humbleness/
14:07:40 [Zakim]: +SeanP
14:09:25 [jo]: fd: it's an obvious statement but how should we pharase it, who thinks we should not mention it?
14:09:34 [jo]: s/pharase/phrase
14:09:51 [jo]: ... does anyone think it is too obvious?
14:09:53 [jo]: q+
14:09:57 [francois]: ack jo
14:09:59 [jo]: ack me
14:11:00 [jo]: jo: think its non-obvious and is definitely an omission from present draft
14:11:20 [jo]: ... and that we should add something about generating valid markup (and images too, for that matter)
14:11:38 [jo]: ... happy to take an action to propose some text in next draft
14:11:49 [jo]: fd: probably should go in 4.4 ,,,,
14:12:20 [jo]: action: jo to create text about transforming proxies generating valid documents and propose it in next draft
14:12:21 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-738 - Create text about transforming proxies generating valid documents and propose it in next draft [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-29].
14:12:31 [francois]: Topic: Linearization/zoom/format support and CT
14:12:51 [jo]: Topic: Discussion on Linearization and Zoom and All That Jazz
14:13:18 [jo]: fd: in 4.1.2 there is some text ... [quotes] ... there was some discussion on the mailing list
14:13:20 [francois]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0032.html thread on the topic
14:13:48 [jo]: fd: first this applies to the response
14:13:58 [jo]: ... so we should remove it from where it is
14:14:02 [jo]: q+
14:14:20 [jo]: ... and move it to 4.4 Proxy response to user agent
14:14:44 [jo]: ... jo and sean have different perspectives on this
14:14:47 [francois]: ack jo
14:15:45 [jo]: jo: there needs to be something under 4.1.2 reference not changing headers
14:16:02 [jo]: fd: but we already say that headers should not be changed
14:16:12 [jo]: ... unless the response would be rejected
14:16:19 [jo]: ... so it doesn't add anything
14:16:39 [jo]: ... you suggest that we add this as an additional point?
14:18:45 [jo]: jo: I think it should go under "knowledge it has of user agent capabilities" as you suggest under Possiblity 1 c)
14:19:12 [jo]: fd: OK, yes as an example of UA capabilities
14:19:35 [SeanP]: q+
14:19:39 [francois]: ack SeanP
14:20:06 [jo]: seanp: even on advanced browsers you may want to do some kind of transformation
14:20:33 [jo]: ... depends on network, memory and so on, so you might want to do some segmentation
14:21:17 [jo]: fd: still worth mentioning under 4.1.2 but maybe change the wording under 4.4
14:21:49 [jo]: seanp: the way I would phrase it is that the capabilities of the browser should be taken into account but shouldn't be a restriction
14:22:13 [jo]: fd: perhaps it is just another example of the type of heuristic that the proxy should apply
14:23:55 [SeanP]: q+
14:24:07 [francois]: ack SeanP
14:24:38 [jo]: jo: perhaps it could go there but I am worried that we end up being too wishy washy. what we are trying to avoid is having the server doinf adaptation, and transforming proxies transforming and ditto the browsers - this turns into a real mess. And we should say that this is to be avoided etc.
14:25:08 [jo]: sean: yes, I agree but the case I was referring to was when the Server doesn't adapt then it may be worth the proxy doing things
14:26:02 [francois]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: to replace paragraph on "adavanced browsers" and CT, add it as an example to "any knowledge it has of user agent capabilities" in 4.1.2 and add it as a bullet point in the list of heuristics in 4.4
14:26:25 [SeanP]: +1
14:26:26 [francois]: +1
14:26:32 [andrews]: +1
14:26:34 [hgerlach]: -1
14:26:40 [Martin1]: +1
14:26:41 [jo]: +1 to francois's auto-+1
14:27:57 [jo]: qheiko: don't agree because of the arbitrary choices of my local marketing department
14:28:06 [jo]: s/qheiko/heiko/
14:28:18 [jo]: q+ to disagree strongly with heiko
14:28:35 [hgerlach]: +1
14:28:41 [francois]: ack jo
14:28:41 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to disagree strongly with heiko
14:28:44 [jo]: fd: if we add this to the list of heuristics then it is not as strong so matters less
14:29:19 [Zakim]: -Magnus
14:30:30 [jo]: jo: I think that whether your equipment is conformant to these guidelines or not is their choice, we can't make arbitrary choices in the sections based on the bits they may or may not choose to ignore
14:30:40 [jo]: RESOLUTION: to replace paragraph on "adavanced browsers" and CT, add it as an example to "any knowledge it has of user agent capabilities" in 4.1.2 and add it as a bullet point in the list of heuristics in 4.4
14:30:53 [jo]: s/adavanced/advanced/
14:31:09 [jo]: topic: Ajax Calls and CT Proxies
14:31:24 [francois]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Mar/0028.html discussion on Ajax/XHR calls
14:31:57 [jo]: fd: basically if you have an XHR in a page then there is no way for the CT proxy to know that this is an AJAX call
14:32:06 [jo]: ... rather than just a page request
14:32:12 [jo]: ... we did discuss this
14:32:49 [jo]: ... it's just about choosing the right response content type - text/xml or text/plain
14:33:01 [jo]: ... I wonder if we should write about it or forget about it
14:33:08 [jo]: ... there isn't really a rpoblem in practice
14:33:20 [jo]: s/rpoblem/problem/
14:33:23 [hgerlach]: q+
14:33:32 [jo]: q+ to suggest that we put an example in the appendix
14:34:09 [jo]: fd: we could add this to a list of heuristics
14:34:12 [hgerlach]: +1
14:34:13 [francois]: ack hgerlach
14:34:32 [jo]: ... saying that if you see scripts then be prepared for this
14:34:56 [jo]: heiko: the application has to add no-cache so adding no-transform should not be a problem
14:35:01 [francois]: ack jo
14:35:01 [Zakim]: jo, you wanted to suggest that we put an example in the appendix
14:35:47 [jo]: jo: think that we should discuss this and say the no-transform should be added in both the request and the response
14:35:58 [jo]: fd: do you mean the request or just the response
14:36:08 [jo]: ... not sure there is need to add it in the request
14:36:53 [SeanP]: q+
14:36:54 [jo]: jo: think this is the classic use case for no-transform in the request
14:37:36 [jo]: heiko: normally the Ajax client and data are owned by the same operator so they can add this easily
14:37:39 [francois]: ack SeanP
14:37:45 [jo]: ... either way round
14:38:19 [jo]: seanp: martin said at the f2f if the page that contained the ajax request was transformed then you might want to transform the response
14:38:34 [jo]: heiko: transformed ajax pages won't work, in my expectation
14:38:57 [Martin1]: q+
14:39:15 [jo]: seanp: the point was that if the proxy knows enough to transform the page with the request then it will know enough to transform the request
14:39:25 [hgerlach]: q+
14:39:37 [Martin1]: zakim, unmute me
14:39:37 [Zakim]: Martin1 should no longer be muted
14:39:38 [francois]: ack Martin1
14:39:42 [jo]: fd: if it knows enough then it is going to be smart enough to remove the no-transform it receives
14:39:46 [francois]: ack Martin
14:40:32 [hgerlach]: sorry, I have to leave for the doc.- bye Heiko
14:40:48 [jo]: martin: I agree that if you transform an Ajax page then it's unlikely to work, but there could be some minor optimizations that are worth doing and should not be prohibited
14:40:58 [jo]: fd: wondering alound, um, er,
14:41:05 [jo]: s/alound/aloud/
14:41:22 [jo]: ... if it is smart enough it could remove the no-transform from the request so ...
14:41:37 [jo]: ... <scribe not following FD's drift here>
14:42:02 [jo]: q+
14:42:14 [francois]: ack hgerlach
14:42:47 [jo]: heiko: got to go , just want to say there should be no-transform on the response to the AJAX request
14:42:57 [Zakim]: -hgerlach
14:42:58 [jo]: fd: agree that it should be rpesent in both
14:43:05 [Martin1]: zakim, mute me
14:43:05 [Zakim]: Martin1 should now be muted
14:43:07 [jo]: s/rpesent/present/
14:43:14 [francois]: ack jo
14:43:55 [SeanP]: q+
14:44:06 [jo]: jo: I find it worrying that you suggest that a transforming proxy MAY transform requests with no-transform on them
14:44:19 [jo]: fd: hmmm, difficult to write it
14:44:58 [jo]: ... some where in the doc we should add the text saying that XHR requests should have no-transform on (and consequently according to the rules it will alos be on the response)
14:45:36 [jo]: jo: suggest that we put this in as one among other examples of how the whole thing is intended to be used
14:46:00 [jo]: ... in a non-normative appendix, for example
14:46:29 [francois]: ack SeanP
14:47:05 [jo]: seanp: I was thinking along the lines of the ??? itself hasn't been and there is no no-transform on the request or the response
14:47:28 [jo]: scribe is confused?
14:48:35 [jo]: seanp: if it is no-transform ab initio, then it shouldn't be transformed, but just because it is Ajax doesn't mean it should not be transformed
14:48:45 [francois]: ACTION: daoust to summarize (again) discussion on Ajax/XHR and propose some resolutions
14:48:48 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-739 - Summarize (again) discussion on Ajax/XHR and propose some resolutions [on François Daoust - due 2008-04-29].
14:49:23 [jo]: Topic: Comments and Via Headers
14:49:29 [jo]: fd: we are in 4.1.3
14:49:59 [jo]: ... there is a statement that comments in Via headers may be removed
14:50:27 [jo]: ... it seems that this was motivated my memory constraints and they don't exist in practice
14:50:46 [jo]: ... doesn't mean that comments are always kept just means they are kept most of the time
14:51:03 [jo]: ... don't think we should change anything
14:51:22 [SeanP]: On the XHR issue, my comment was that if a page was transformed, then any XHR requests originating from that page may need to have their responses transformed, so these requests should probably not be marked no-transform.
14:51:27 [francois]: According to the HTTP RFC (§14.45), Via headers comments "MAY be
14:51:27 [francois]: removed by any recipient prior to forwarding the message". Noting that
14:51:27 [francois]: the justification for removing such comments is memory-based, that most
14:51:27 [francois]: modern proxies are able to handle that amount of information and that
14:51:27 [francois]: comments are useful for CT, the BPWG recommends that Via headers
14:51:28 [francois]: comments SHOULD NOT be removed.
14:51:29 [jo]: ... and move the ednote to a note and point out that there is a slight difference to HTTP RFC 2616
14:51:51 [jo]: ... per the text I just pasted
14:52:21 [jo]: ... any objection or aything to add?
14:52:23 [francois]: q?
14:52:30 [jo]: s/ayth/anyth/
14:52:57 [jo]: ACTION: Jo to find a way of crafting FD's text above and weaving it skillfully into the flow of the text
14:52:57 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-740 - Find a way of crafting FD's text above and weaving it skillfully into the flow of the text [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-29].
14:53:21 [francois]: Close ACTION-722
14:53:21 [trackbot-ng]: ACTION-722 Check why HTTP RFC states comments MAY be removed from a VIA header. closed
14:53:29 [jo]: fd: close the action
14:53:40 [francois]: Close ACTION-684
14:53:40 [trackbot-ng]: ACTION-684 Include a note that we think it is bad practice to strip the comment from downstream via header fields closed
14:54:02 [jo]: ... and also there was one on jo too, so we can close that as it's all included in the new action
14:54:11 [jo]: Topic: The format of the Via Header
14:54:45 [jo]: fd: i'd prefer if we finished the guidelines without powder and sprinkle it on later
14:55:04 [jo]: ... wondering what we can use in the meantime
14:55:33 [jo]: ... could it be a namespace stating "I'm a CT Proxy?"
14:55:53 [francois]: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/ct/
14:56:05 [jo]: q+
14:56:12 [francois]: ack jo
14:57:23 [jo]: jo: what will a server do knowing that it is a CT proxy but not knowing anything about its facilities
14:57:32 [jo]: fd: we could have one or two values
14:57:41 [jo]: ... including statement of intent to transform
14:57:56 [jo]: ... think it would be directly usable
14:58:34 [jo]: ... later then the usage could be expanded, we could use it as a flag and this would actually already add value
14:58:51 [andrews]: +q
14:59:07 [jo]: jo: so what is a server actually going to do differently
14:59:15 [jo]: fd: it could refuse to serve the page
14:59:33 [jo]: ... it's in the requirements, we wanted the server to know that there is a ct proxy
14:59:53 [jo]: [OK I think there is no downside to this and suggest we do as FD suggests]
14:59:55 [francois]: ack andrews
15:00:28 [jo]: andrew: it's not just the server that would find this useful, it could be useful for diagnostics
15:00:46 [jo]: fd: could be used for debugging
15:00:58 [jo]: andrew: great strength of http is that it is human readable
15:01:09 [jo]: ... v useful to have this information in there.
15:01:28 [jo]: ... moot point as to when you consider yourself to be a transformation proxy
15:02:21 [jo]: fd: there is also the proxy intention to transform that we want to communicate to the server
15:02:34 [jo]: ... and I don't see any other way of doing this
15:02:57 [jo]: ACTION: daoust to write a concrete proposal on use of via header
15:02:57 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-741 - Write a concrete proposal on use of via header [on François Daoust - due 2008-04-29].
15:03:36 [francois]: ACTION: daoust to write some concrete proposal on the format of the HTTP Via comment to advertise the CT-proxy's presence (and possibly intention to transform)
15:03:37 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-742 - Write some concrete proposal on the format of the HTTP Via comment to advertise the CT-proxy's presence (and possibly intention to transform) [on François Daoust - due 2008-04-29].
15:04:16 [jo]: fd: look at the other to do's at the end of the agenda
15:04:30 [jo]: ... we have to get this done and I will try to stimulate discussion on these topics
15:04:40 [jo]: [meeting ends]
15:04:45 [Zakim]: -SeanP
15:04:48 [Zakim]: -Martin1
15:04:49 [Zakim]: -francois
15:04:58 [jo]: zakim, drop me
15:05:08 [Martin1]: Martin1 has left #bpwg
15:05:18 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:18 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:05:24 [Zakim]: jo is being disconnected
15:05:25 [Zakim]: -jo
15:05:36 [jo]: zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:37 [Zakim]: On the phone I see andrews
15:05:39 [Zakim]: -andrews
15:05:41 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended
15:05:43 [Zakim]: Attendees were francois, Magnus, hgerlach, jo, +7.776.13.aaaa, Martin1, andrews, SeanP
15:05:44 [jo]: zakim, drop andews
15:05:49 [Zakim]: sorry, jo, I don't know what conference this is
15:06:08 [francois]: zakim, list attendees
15:06:08 [Zakim]: sorry, francois, I don't know what conference this is
15:06:12 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:06:12 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:09:37 [jo]: zakim, bye
15:09:37 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #bpwg
15:11:16 [francois]: RRSAgent, bye
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: jo to create text about transforming proxies generating valid documents and propose it in next draft [1]
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-irc#T14-12-20
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: daoust to summarize (again) discussion on Ajax/XHR and propose some resolutions [2]
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-irc#T14-48-45
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Jo to find a way of crafting FD's text above and weaving it skillfully into the flow of the text [3]
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-irc#T14-52-57
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: daoust to write a concrete proposal on use of via header [4]
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-irc#T15-02-57
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: daoust to write some concrete proposal on the format of the HTTP Via comment to advertise the CT-proxy's presence (and possibly intention to transform) [5]
15:11:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-bpwg-irc#T15-03-36