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