IRC log of bpwg on 2008-06-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:41 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #bpwg

13:57:41 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-irc

13:57:43 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:57:43 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #bpwg

13:57:45 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be BPWG

13:57:45 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes

13:57:46 [trackbot]

Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13:57:46 [trackbot]

Date: 05 June 2008

13:59:14 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started

13:59:21 [Zakim]

+jeffs

13:59:29 [DKA]

DKA has joined #bpwg

13:59:40 [Zakim]

+DKA

13:59:50 [francois]

Regrets: AlanC, Kemp, AdamC, Yeliz, DRooks, Murari, Abel, EdM, MartinJ, rob, Scott

13:59:51 [jo]

zakim, code please?

13:59:51 [Zakim]

the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo

14:00:01 [DKA]

zakim, who is here?

14:00:01 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jeffs, DKA

14:00:02 [Zakim]

On IRC I see DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, jeffs, trackbot, francois, matt, dom

14:00:09 [matt]

Present- Matt

14:00:18 [miguel]

miguel has joined #bpwg

14:00:53 [Zakim]

+Francois

14:01:27 [Zakim]

+[W3C-Spain]

14:01:55 [miguel]

Zakim, [W3C-Spain] is me

14:01:55 [Zakim]

+miguel; got it

14:02:00 [francois]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0005.html

14:02:06 [francois]

Chair: DKA

14:02:40 [Zakim]

+jo

14:03:25 [DKA]

zakim, who is here?

14:03:25 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jeffs, DKA, Francois, miguel, jo

14:03:26 [Zakim]

On IRC I see miguel, DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, jeffs, trackbot, francois, matt, dom

14:03:39 [Zakim]

+Dom

14:03:49 [jo]

zakim, who is making noise?

14:04:01 [Zakim]

jo, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeffs (23%), DKA (8%)

14:04:14 [jo]

zakim, mute jeffs

14:04:14 [Zakim]

jeffs should now be muted

14:04:32 [Eman]

Eman has joined #bpwg

14:04:37 [DKA]

zakim, who is here?

14:04:37 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jeffs (muted), DKA, Francois, miguel, jo, Dom (muted)

14:04:39 [Zakim]

On IRC I see Eman, miguel, DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, jeffs, trackbot, francois, matt, dom

14:04:58 [francois]

Regrets+ Bryan

14:06:17 [miguel]

agenda 2: Accesibility

14:06:21 [jo]

Topic: Accesibility Document Status

14:06:34 [miguel]

jo: any comments?

14:06:38 [jo]

s/agenda 2: Accesibility//

14:06:44 [jo]

s/jo:/dka:/

14:07:24 [miguel]

Topic: MobileOk

14:07:49 [miguel]

jo: new editors draft

14:07:52 [francois]

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080602 new mobileOK draft

14:08:39 [manrique]

manrique has joined #bpwg

14:08:58 [miguel]

jo: document nearly completed

14:09:29 [miguel]

jo: it will be easy change User-Agent change to take care extensibility

14:09:46 [jo]

s/jo: new/dka: new/

14:10:01 [Zakim]

+berrueta

14:10:34 [miguel]

Zakim, berrueta is manrique

14:10:34 [Zakim]

+manrique; got it

14:11:17 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Wording ref "exactly" should be modified under discussion of the User Agent header to allow implementations that are crawlers to add additional stuff identifying themselves

14:11:57 [francois]

q+

14:12:16 [DKA]

ack francois

14:12:51 [dom]

[I agree with francois this needs clarification]

14:12:59 [miguel]

francois: wondering about extending User Agent string

14:13:09 [Zakim]

+Kai_Dietrich

14:13:45 [dom]

[I think we should allow for additional product tokens, additional comments]

14:14:00 [dom]

[but making sure they first product token is the one set by the spec]

14:14:30 [dom]

ack me

14:15:02 [miguel]

francois: discussing about additional comments should be at the beggining or ending of User Agent

14:16:39 [dom]

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.43

14:16:46 [dom]

User-Agent = "User-Agent" ":" 1*( product | comment )

14:17:01 [dom]

-> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.8 Syntax for Product tokens

14:18:01 [dom]

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec2.html#sec2

14:18:05 [dom]

; comment

14:18:05 [dom]

A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text, starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This is a simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the specifications.

14:18:16 [Kai]

Kai has joined #bpwg

14:18:29 [dom]

Comments can be included in some HTTP header fields by surrounding the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed in fields containing "comment" as part of their field value definition. In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field value.

14:18:29 [dom]

comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"

14:18:29 [dom]

ctext = <any TEXT excluding "(" and ")">

14:20:45 [dom]

quoted-pair = "\" CHAR

14:21:43 [dom]

s/; comment//

14:21:56 [dom]

s/A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text, starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This is a simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the specifications.//

14:23:08 [miguel]

[dom, jo and francois arguing about the number of comments that could go in the user agent string]

14:23:25 [dom]

The first product token should be "W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0"

14:25:27 [Bob_Cratchett]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token containing W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment containing (see ... yada yada)

14:25:45 [dom]

+1

14:25:52 [jeffs]

+1

14:26:07 [dom]

yada yada = http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc

14:26:14 [miguel]

+1

14:26:19 [DKA]

+1

14:26:22 [Kai]

+1

14:26:23 [SeanP]

SeanP has joined #bpwg

14:27:39 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token set-to W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment set to (see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)

14:27:52 [Zakim]

+SeanP

14:28:10 [Kai_]

Kai_ has joined #bpwg

14:28:53 [miguel]

RESOLUTION: Change the wording of User Agent string in MobileOK Basic to say that the value MUST start with a product token set-to W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 and a comment set to (see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)

14:29:39 [jo]

ACTION: Jo to confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of pednatry for the group

14:29:39 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-767 - Confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of pednatry for the group [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-06-12].

14:30:07 [jo]

s/pednatry/pedantry/

14:30:40 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending Jo's change about user-agent, the group agrees to publish this document as a Last Call Working Draft, with a comments period of 3 weeks, with a proposal to move directly to PR if possible

14:31:20 [miguel]

RESOLUTION: Pending Jo's change about user-agent, the group agrees to publish this document as a Last Call Working Draft, with a comments period of 3 weeks, with a proposal to move directly to PR if possible

14:31:22 [DKA]

+1

14:31:26 [jeffs]

+1

14:31:29 [dom]

+1

14:34:57 [miguel]

Topic BP 2.0

14:35:32 [dom]

s/Topic /Topic: /

14:35:43 [DKA]

zakim, unmute jeffs

14:35:43 [Zakim]

jeffs should no longer be muted

14:35:47 [miguel]

DKA: anything to discuss?

14:36:45 [miguel]

X: in the process of making an input document. it'll be ready for next call

14:37:03 [jeffs]

s/X/DKA

14:37:50 [DKA]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd3jk8v_114tkbg6kgj

14:42:30 [dom]

q+

14:42:34 [dom]

ack me

14:44:02 [francois]

[Re. CT: current schedule is to present a candidate draft for Last Call to the main body of the working group next week, to hopefully decide to publish the doc as Last Call during the F2F in Sophia]

14:45:57 [jo]

q+ to wonder if the editors of BP2 will be there?

14:46:06 [francois]

i/[Re. CT/Topic: F2F Agenda Discussion/

14:46:30 [DKA]

ack jo

14:46:30 [Zakim]

jo, you wanted to wonder if the editors of BP2 will be there?

14:46:47 [francois]

-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/results registration results

14:46:50 [dom]

[Adam is planning on attending]

14:47:59 [dom]

Kai: quick note on the status of mobileOK Pro

14:48:03 [dom]

... we have completed all the tests

14:48:11 [dom]

... the task force has been asked the review the document

14:48:20 [dom]

... will submit the document to the group as a whole shortly

14:48:27 [dom]

DKA: will that be on time for the F2F?

14:48:31 [dom]

Kai: probably, yes

14:48:33 [jeffs]

s/asked the review/asked to review

14:48:39 [dom]

DKA: so I think we should go through it at the F2F

14:49:02 [jo]

i/Kai: /scribenick: dom/

14:49:23 [dom]

... so that we can give actions, decide its next steps, Rec-track or not

14:50:07 [dom]

Kai: the document might be better served if we receive detailed feedback before the f2f

14:50:18 [dom]

... and keep a high level discussion at the F2F meeting

14:50:24 [jo]

q+ to note that the document has not received any proper attention in the body of the group

14:50:29 [DKA]

ack jo

14:50:29 [Zakim]

jo, you wanted to note that the document has not received any proper attention in the body of the group

14:51:07 [dom]

Jo: it's good that TF can focus on specific items, but let's note that the group hasn't considered the document in sufficient details

14:51:23 [dom]

... I think it would be wishful thinking that people will get into the details of the spec before the f2f

14:51:42 [dom]

... esp. as we'll ask people to look at the CT guidelines in more details for a LC

14:51:57 [dom]

... so I think it might worth going through the document in some details during the F2F

14:52:13 [dom]

... and we certainly need to discuss its future

14:52:43 [dom]

DKA: yeah, I think that would be useful

14:52:51 [dom]

... it was very useful for the CT document back in Seoul

14:53:19 [dom]

... I'll take this as input to update the agenda

14:53:34 [dom]

... is there any other logistical or process related issue we need to discuss in the F2F?

14:53:42 [francois]

q+

14:53:52 [dom]

Kai: What about POWDER and its connection to mobileOK?

14:54:07 [dom]

DKA: will we have the right people there to discuss this? I don't think PhilA is attending

14:54:11 [dom]

Jo: No, he isn't

14:54:34 [dom]

Kai: I can give whatever information I have at the F2F if that helps the group decides

14:54:47 [dom]

DKA: I think it's worthwhile to put it on the agenda as information

14:54:53 [dom]

... but probably too early to make a decision

14:55:04 [dom]

... (on whether we want to adopt it for mobileOK)

14:55:07 [DKA]

q?

14:55:10 [DKA]

ack francois

14:55:10 [jeffs]

s/information/informational

14:55:37 [dom]

francois: we still need to address the normative vs informative status of the CT guidelines

14:55:55 [jo]

q+ to note that the normative language has been removed from the next draft ...

14:56:02 [dom]

... SeanP supported the idea of making the document normative

14:56:06 [dom]

... which would require a rechartering

14:56:15 [dom]

DKA: good point, worth discussion indeed

14:56:21 [dom]

... I would prefer a normative document as well

14:56:25 [dom]

... I'll put on the agenda

14:56:53 [DKA]

q?

14:56:57 [DKA]

ack jo

14:56:57 [Zakim]

jo, you wanted to note that the normative language has been removed from the next draft ...

14:56:59 [dom]

... We can put this in the context of the charter extension

14:57:37 [dom]

Jo: I've removed the "normative status" language from the doc

14:57:53 [dom]

... my preference would be that we issue the next LCWD independently of the resolution of that question

14:58:21 [dom]

francois: yeah, whatever the decision we make, there is no way we can publish the LCWD as normative in the next month

14:58:30 [dom]

Jo: indeed

14:58:44 [dom]

... as we know, we can have as many LC as we like

14:59:11 [dom]

... if we agree to recharter, we can publish a 2nd LC

14:59:32 [dom]

[note that the change of status wouldn't actually require a new LC, I believe]

14:59:45 [jeffs]

if not charter for that now, don't do that now

15:00:19 [dom]

ack me

15:01:10 [francois]

dom: my understanding is that the only requirement is that there be at least 150 days between the first time the document is published as normative and its publication as Proposed Rec

15:02:24 [dom]

DKA: if there are companies that have IPR that are associated with content transformation that might be attached with the guidelines

15:02:30 [jo]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately

15:02:55 [jeffs]

understands now... lawyers

15:03:00 [dom]

... if the document is normative, then the patents held by companies in the group needs to license on an RF-basis, right?

15:03:01 [Kai_]

q+ to say that status of being normative does not change anything about existing patents

15:03:04 [dom]

ack me

15:03:11 [DKA]

ack kai

15:03:11 [Zakim]

Kai_, you wanted to say that status of being normative does not change anything about existing patents

15:05:08 [dom]

d RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately

15:05:11 [dom]

RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately

15:05:21 [dom]

s/d RESOLUTION: CT Guidelines to be issued as a non normative Last Call WD in accordance with the current charter, we'll review whether to make it normative separately//

15:05:29 [dom]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:05:29 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html dom

15:05:56 [dom]

zakim, mute me

15:05:56 [Zakim]

Dom should now be muted

15:06:29 [jo]

{Proposed text for CT Guidelines: <div2 id="sec-rfc2119">

15:06:31 [jo]

<head>Interpretation of RFC 2119 Key Words</head>

15:06:33 [jo]

<p>This document is not normative <phrase role="ednote">Need link to definition</phrase> and it is inappropriate to claim conformance to it. Implementors of this Recommendation who wish to promote effective inter operability of Web content will, however, interpret the key words

15:06:35 [jo]

<rfc2119>must</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>must not</rfc2119>,

15:06:37 [jo]

<rfc2119>required</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>shall</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>shall

15:06:39 [jo]

not</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>should</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>should not</rfc2119>,

15:06:41 [jo]

<rfc2119>recommended</rfc2119>, <rfc2119>may</rfc2119>, and

15:06:43 [jo]

<rfc2119>optional </rfc2119>in this Recommendation as

15:06:45 [jo]

described in <bibref ref="ref-rfc-2119"/> .</p>

15:06:47 [jo]

</div2>

15:08:09 [dom]

ack me

15:09:18 [francois]

dom: big difference is that in the informative case, participants are only required to disclose patents of others they know about

15:09:41 [francois]

... whereas in the normative case, any undisclosed patent falls under the RF policy

15:10:46 [SeanP]

q+

15:11:32 [DKA]

ack seanp

15:12:03 [Zakim]

-Dom

15:12:26 [DKA]

q?

15:13:09 [francois]

SeanP: Reason to support "normative" was for legitimacy reasons, not really for patent issues. If that is not the case, then we're not strongly supporting the normative change.

15:13:24 [francois]

i/dom: big difference/ScribeNick: francois/

15:13:55 [Zakim]

-Kai_Dietrich

15:13:56 [Zakim]

-DKA

15:13:57 [francois]

DKA: OK, we'll have the discussion during the F2F

15:13:58 [manrique]

see you

15:13:59 [Zakim]

-SeanP

15:14:01 [Zakim]

-jeffs

15:14:01 [Zakim]

-jo

15:14:05 [francois]

... Session adjourned, thanks everybody

15:14:10 [Zakim]

-manrique

15:14:12 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:14:12 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:14:16 [Kai_]

Kai_ has left #bpwg

15:14:18 [Zakim]

-Francois

15:14:19 [Zakim]

-miguel

15:14:19 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended

15:14:21 [Zakim]

Attendees were jeffs, DKA, Francois, miguel, jo, Dom, manrique, Kai_Dietrich, SeanP

15:14:39 [jo]

i/SeanP/scribenick: francois/

15:14:59 [jo]

i/SeanP:/scribenick: francois/

15:15:00 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:15:00 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:16:25 [francois]

i/Topic: Accesibility Document Status/ScribeNick: miguel/

15:16:26 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:16:26 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:17:04 [francois]

i/Date: 05 June 2008/Scribenick: miguel/

15:17:05 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:17:05 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-minutes.html francois

15:17:39 [francois]

trackbot, gtfl

15:17:39 [trackbot]

Sorry, francois, I don't understand 'trackbot, gtfl'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

15:21:35 [jo]

trackbot, we are most grateful for your graciously rendered services

15:21:35 [trackbot]

Sorry, jo, I don't understand 'trackbot, we are most grateful for your graciously rendered services'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

15:22:33 [jo]

trackbot, will you please arrange for your colleagues to gtfl

15:22:33 [trackbot]

Sorry, jo, I don't understand 'trackbot, will you please arrange for your colleagues to gtfl'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

15:22:57 [jo]

oh, well, maybe dom will do that in another revision, francois

15:23:34 [francois]

:-)

15:23:38 [francois]

RRSAgent, bye

15:23:38 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-actions.rdf :

15:23:38 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jo to confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list to satisfy the growing needs of pednatry for the group [1]

15:23:38 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-bpwg-irc#T14-29-39