IRC log of bpwg on 2008-05-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:01:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-irc
14:01:15 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:01:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:01:16 [hgerlach]
the bridge kicked me out=>retry
14:01:17 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:01:17 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:01:18 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:01:18 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 06 May 2008
14:01:23 [francois]
Chair: francois
14:01:29 [francois]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0003.html
14:01:33 [francois]
Regrets: andrews, bryan, martinj, murari, kemp, magnus
14:01:52 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started
14:02:06 [hgerlach]
ok, it woks
14:02:11 [Zakim]
+hgerlach
14:02:28 [rob]
rob has joined #bpwg
14:02:38 [Zakim]
+SeanP
14:02:42 [Zakim]
+francois
14:02:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.207.287.aaaa
14:03:18 [rob]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:03:18 [Zakim]
+rob; got it
14:04:07 [francois]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:04:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see hgerlach, SeanP, francois, rob
14:04:45 [jo]
zakim, code?
14:04:45 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:05:24 [Zakim]
+jo
14:06:12 [francois]
Scribe: rob
14:06:15 [francois]
ScribeNick: rob
14:06:40 [francois]
Topic: Issuing two requests, idempotency, comparison, etc
14:06:55 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0043.html topic
14:07:51 [rob]
francois: continuing from last week, what are the dangers of a CT proxy issuing 2 requests and comparing the responses?
14:08:54 [rob]
... obviously unneccessary traffic/congestion should be avoided
14:09:24 [hgerlach]
q+ in about 2 mins
14:09:56 [rob]
... but there could be a case for issuing a 2nd request with altered HTTP headers in the event that the 1st response is somhow not satisfactory
14:10:19 [rob]
s/somhow/somehow/
14:10:49 [francois]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2.1: in §4.1.2, replace "Issue a request with unaltered headers and examine the response (see 4.4 [...])" with "Issue a request with unaltered headers and examine the response to check whether it's a 'request rejected' one"
14:11:29 [rob]
q+ to change "request rejected" for "unsatisfactory"
14:11:37 [francois]
ack rob
14:11:37 [Zakim]
rob, you wanted to change "request rejected" for "unsatisfactory"
14:11:42 [hgerlach]
q+
14:15:19 [jo]
q+ to say that the reference to 4.4 should stay as it is about determining whether the response is mobile friendly
14:16:25 [francois]
ack hgerlach
14:17:07 [rob]
hgerlach: still remind everyone that there are a lot of one-time URLs used on mobile phones
14:18:19 [rob]
francois: this "tasting" and possible 2nd request is only used when there is no a-priori knowledge of the server
14:19:09 [rob]
so subsequent requests to the same server are already using the a-priori knowledge
14:19:42 [rob]
hgerlach: but often discovery is from one server and delivery is from a different server
14:20:17 [francois]
ack jo
14:20:17 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to say that the reference to 4.4 should stay as it is about determining whether the response is mobile friendly
14:20:42 [rob]
... in this case there could be issues with the one-time URL on the delivery server that has not been visited before
14:21:07 [SeanP]
q+
14:22:26 [francois]
ack SeanP
14:23:37 [rob]
seanP: the word "rejected" could be problematic, eg if the HTTP response is 200 OK but we still want something different
14:25:44 [rob]
... eg a smartphone might get a desktop version and we could want to spoof a less-smart mobile to get a more mobile-friendly presentation
14:26:21 [rob]
francois: does anyone want to propose more comprehensive text?
14:27:01 [SeanP]
q+
14:27:01 [hgerlach]
q+
14:27:05 [francois]
ack SeanP
14:27:34 [rob]
... in practice, do CT proxies compare responses from 2 requests and then return whichever they prefer?
14:28:16 [francois]
ack hgerlach
14:28:41 [rob]
seanP: currently no, we only make one request, except where the response has alternate links in it which we then follow
14:30:33 [rob]
hgerlach: problem is when a CT proxy spoofs a desktop browser 1st - I'd prefer use mobile User-Agent 1st
14:35:15 [francois]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: at the end of §4.1.2, complete "Not to break existing content, the proxy SHOULD send only one request" with "In particular, it SHOULD NOT issue duplicate requests for comparison purpose as a generic rule."
14:36:36 [SeanP]
q+
14:36:50 [rob]
jo: where does this go?
14:37:13 [francois]
ack SeanP
14:37:13 [rob]
francois: replaces editorial note at end of 4.1.2
14:37:54 [rob]
seanP: what does the 2nd clause add to the 1st?
14:38:21 [rob]
francois: it's an example for emphasis, not a seperate requirement
14:38:57 [rob]
jo: prefer to remove "Not to break existing content"
14:39:28 [rob]
francois: it is an extract from last week's resolution - but it's in the Editor's hands
14:39:33 [hgerlach]
i prefer that what we already have in there in the orig document
14:40:04 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Note: CT Prxoies SHOULD avoid sending duplicate requests where [possible and specifically SHOULD NOT send duyplicate requests for comparison purposes only
14:40:21 [francois]
+1
14:40:26 [hgerlach]
+1
14:40:29 [SeanP]
+1
14:40:47 [rob]
s/duyplicate/duplicate/
14:41:19 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Note: CT Proxies SHOULD avoid sending duplicate requests where [possible and specifically SHOULD NOT send duplicate requests for comparison purposes only
14:41:31 [rob]
RESOLUTION: Note: CT Prxoies SHOULD avoid sending duplicate requests where [possible and specifically SHOULD NOT send duplicate requests for comparison purposes only
14:41:58 [hgerlach]
q+
14:42:15 [rob]
s/Prxoies/Proxies/
14:42:41 [rob]
s/[possible/possible/
14:43:08 [francois]
ack hgerlach
14:43:18 [rob]
q+ to ask does it have to be 100% clear?
14:43:40 [francois]
ack rob
14:43:40 [Zakim]
rob, you wanted to ask does it have to be 100% clear?
14:46:18 [jo]
ACTION: Jo to propose text for the final part of 4.1.2 taking into account resolutions and discussion on this and the previous call
14:46:18 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-752 - Propose text for the final part of 4.1.2 taking into account resolutions and discussion on this and the previous call [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-13].
14:46:31 [francois]
Topic: Content-types and doctypes
14:46:56 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0045.html Sean's list of content-types
14:47:08 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.html Sean's list of doctypes
14:48:00 [SeanP]
q+
14:48:41 [hgerlach]
q+
14:49:18 [rob]
jo: do we really want to list all this in our document? Especially as Content-Type is such a broken mechanism in practise
14:49:57 [rob]
... <DOCTYPE>s are useful and the list is relatively short
14:49:57 [hgerlach]
+1
14:50:16 [francois]
ack SeanP
14:51:04 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0004.html fd's try to rationalize
14:51:10 [rob]
seanP: agree with Jo, the Content-Type list is really only examples, it's not complete
14:51:47 [hgerlach]
q+
14:52:32 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Mention content type as a contributory heuristic (no specific mentions) and list the DOCTYPEs mentioned by Sean in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.html
14:52:37 [francois]
ack hgerlach
14:54:37 [francois]
+1
14:54:43 [hgerlach]
+1
14:54:46 [SeanP]
+1
14:54:47 [rob]
+1
14:55:15 [rob]
francois: and no-one wants to be more restrictive?
14:55:28 [rob]
RESOLUTION: Mention content type as a contributory heuristic (no specific mentions) and list the DOCTYPEs mentioned by Sean in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0000.html
14:56:27 [francois]
Close ACTION-725
14:56:27 [trackbot-ng]
ACTION-725 Send a list of content-types for which content transformation applies closed
14:56:35 [francois]
Topic: Link element in HTML requests
14:56:53 [francois]
<link rel="alternate" media="handheld" type="[content-type]" href="[uri]" />
14:57:57 [jo]
q+ to express confusion as to what this convention means
14:58:52 [francois]
ack jo
14:58:52 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to express confusion as to what this convention means
14:59:00 [rob]
francois: question is if you are the mobile-friendly page, do you link to yourself to show you are the handheld version?
14:59:54 [SeanP]
q+
15:00:09 [francois]
ack SeanP
15:01:07 [rob]
jo: exactly, it's a useful mechanism to link to more appropriate versions but how can you identify what user-agents THIS version is suitable for?
15:01:26 [rob]
seanP: can we ask Aaron? Google likes this mechanism
15:02:01 [rob]
francois: OK, I'll ask Aaron
15:02:40 [rob]
jo: AOB - there are a couple of things in Luca's "manifesto" that could be useful here
15:03:39 [rob]
francois: I wanted to report on this on the mailing list 1st then take resolutions in a subsequent call
15:04:08 [rob]
jo: waht if I include them in the next edition and then everyone reviews?
15:04:28 [jo]
PROPSOED RESOLUTION: Include X-Forwarded-For and use of meta http-equiv in next rev
15:04:32 [rob]
s/waht/what/
15:04:34 [rob]
+1
15:04:38 [SeanP]
+1
15:04:39 [francois]
i/jo: AOB -/Topic: AOB: About inclusion of a few points of Luca's manifesto
15:04:41 [francois]
+1
15:05:01 [hgerlach]
+1
15:05:04 [jo]
s/PROPSOED/PROPOSED/
15:05:13 [rob]
RESOLUTION: Include X-Forwarded-For and use of meta http-equiv in next rev
15:06:15 [hgerlach]
bye
15:06:18 [Zakim]
-hgerlach
15:06:20 [Zakim]
-francois
15:06:20 [Zakim]
-jo
15:06:25 [Zakim]
-SeanP
15:06:27 [Zakim]
-rob
15:06:27 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended
15:06:28 [Zakim]
Attendees were hgerlach, SeanP, francois, +1.207.287.aaaa, rob, jo
15:06:28 [francois]
zakim, list attendees
15:06:28 [Zakim]
sorry, francois, I don't know what conference this is
15:06:44 [francois]
Present: hgerlach, SeanP, francois, jo, rob
15:07:03 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:07:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-minutes.html francois
15:08:00 [rob]
rob has left #bpwg
15:26:17 [francois]
RRSAgent, bye
15:26:17 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:26:17 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jo to propose text for the final part of 4.1.2 taking into account resolutions and discussion on this and the previous call [1]
15:26:17 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-irc#T14-46-18