IRC log of bpwg on 2008-11-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:51:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-irc
14:51:23 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:51:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:51:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:51:25 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:51:26 [trackbot]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:51:26 [trackbot]
Date: 11 November 2008
14:51:31 [francois]
Chair: francois
14:52:15 [francois]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0018.html
14:56:44 [jo]
jo has joined #bpwg
14:57:31 [tomhume]
tomhume has joined #bpwg
14:58:21 [jo]
3
14:58:28 [jo]
s/3//
14:59:15 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started
14:59:23 [Zakim]
+??P8
14:59:24 [Zakim]
-??P8
14:59:25 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended
14:59:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were
14:59:33 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has now started
14:59:35 [Zakim]
+??P9
14:59:44 [francois]
zakim, ??P9 is me
14:59:44 [Zakim]
+francois; got it
14:59:52 [Zakim]
+??P11
14:59:54 [jo]
zakim, code?
14:59:56 [Zakim]
-??P11
14:59:56 [tomhume]
zakim, ??P11 is me
14:59:58 [Zakim]
+??P11
15:00:02 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
15:00:07 [Zakim]
+tomhume; got it
15:00:50 [Zakim]
+ +41.31.972.aaaa
15:01:00 [Zakim]
+??P15
15:01:02 [francois]
zakim, who is making noise?
15:01:11 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
15:01:13 [Zakim]
francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +41.31.972.aaaa (41%), francois (60%), tomhume (5%)
15:01:32 [Zakim]
-francois
15:01:34 [Zakim]
- +41.31.972.aaaa
15:01:43 [jo]
zakim, ??P15 is probably me
15:01:49 [Zakim]
+jo?; got it
15:01:56 [rob]
rob has joined #bpwg
15:02:09 [Zakim]
+ +41.31.972.aabb
15:02:18 [Zakim]
+ +64550aacc
15:02:24 [francois]
zakim, aacc is me
15:02:24 [Zakim]
+francois; got it
15:02:26 [Zakim]
+rob
15:02:55 [Zakim]
+SeanP
15:03:33 [jo]
zakim, aabb is Eduardo
15:03:33 [Zakim]
+Eduardo; got it
15:04:31 [rob]
Scribe: rob
15:04:40 [rob]
ScribeNick: rob
15:05:15 [rob]
francois: Welcome Eduardo Casis
15:05:26 [jo]
i/francois/Topic: Welcome to Eduardo Casais
15:06:09 [rob]
... already known to us from a host of useful comments on the mailing-list
15:06:25 [rob]
s/Casis/Casais/
15:06:26 [jo]
zakim, who is here?
15:06:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tomhume, jo?, Eduardo, francois, rob, SeanP
15:06:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see rob, SeanP, tomhume, jo, Zakim, RRSAgent, francois, dom, trackbot
15:06:48 [jo]
zakim, jo? is really me
15:06:48 [Zakim]
+jo; got it
15:06:56 [rob]
[round of introductions]
15:08:42 [Zakim]
+jo.a
15:08:59 [Zakim]
-jo
15:09:30 [rob]
Eduardo: I work for a small mobile content developer in Switzerland, previously worked for Nokia where I was involved in many things including UA-Prof
15:09:51 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107 New draft of CT
15:10:01 [rob]
Topic: New Draft
15:10:28 [rob]
jo: I could talk at length on this!
15:10:37 [francois]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Nov/0017.html Jo's changelog and discussion
15:10:45 [rob]
... I hope it includes all the resolutions so far
15:11:21 [rob]
... Hope to gather together anything missing (eg rewriting HTTPS links holes) in the next 2-3 days
15:12:10 [rob]
... considerable polish is required but would be a waste of time until the substance is stable, which may take another draft
15:12:48 [rob]
... it will be useful if everyone gives this draft a deep review
15:13:06 [rob]
... santiy-check and make sure it says what we agreed
15:13:13 [rob]
... check for consistency
15:13:38 [rob]
... tighten the nuts and bolts (eg any shoulds that could be musts?)
15:13:53 [rob]
... and check if clarity can be improved
15:14:18 [rob]
francois: everyone should send comments to the mailing-list
15:14:33 [rob]
... just like Eduardo has been doing
15:14:52 [francois]
Topic: Content-Location
15:15:08 [francois]
fd: introduced by Rob on the mailing-list.
15:16:03 [francois]
rob: Yes. Don't think there is anything to do, but comes from a long discussion, so I wanted to check whether there was a reason not to include a Content-Location header in the response passed downstream to the phone
15:16:25 [rob]
jo: do we need to propose text around this?
15:16:48 [rob]
francois: Rob's said he doesn't think there is anything to propose here
15:17:39 [rob]
Eduardo: RFC says the value of Content-Location also defines the base URI of the entity
15:17:56 [rob]
francois: that's also one of my fears
15:18:06 [rob]
... and <link> is more correct
15:18:16 [rob]
q+
15:18:24 [francois]
ack rob
15:19:04 [rob]
rob: I just wanted to see if anyone has a need for this at all
15:19:17 [rob]
... and so far I've heard no reason to want it
15:19:44 [rob]
francois: could be a way to pass the canonical URI to the client for bookmarking
15:20:13 [rob]
rob: I tried that on a real phone and it doesn't work
15:20:37 [rob]
francois: correct, no-one uses that right now
15:20:51 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No need to mention Content-Location header
15:20:57 [rob]
... does anyone want us to go to TAG to check?
15:20:57 [francois]
+1
15:21:04 [tomhume]
+1
15:21:06 [rob]
+1
15:21:26 [rob]
RESOLUTION: No need to mention Content-Location header
15:21:51 [rob]
Topic: OMA Standard Transcoding Interface
15:22:15 [rob]
francois: no overlap at the moment between OMA doc and our doc
15:23:05 [jo]
zakim, who is here?
15:23:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tomhume, Eduardo, francois, rob, SeanP, jo.a
15:23:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see rob, SeanP, tomhume, jo, Zakim, RRSAgent, francois, dom, trackbot
15:23:08 [rob]
... OMA doc is an interface for a server, not for a proxy
15:23:21 [jo]
zakim, jo.a is really jo
15:23:21 [Zakim]
+jo; got it
15:23:21 [rob]
... so there is no incompatibility and no overlap
15:23:55 [rob]
... but there is some media-transcoding vocab defined that could be useful in future work
15:24:40 [rob]
jo: can we resolve LC-2051 now then?
15:24:50 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our document but may have interest for a general transformation vocab
15:24:57 [rob]
+1
15:24:59 [tomhume]
+1
15:24:59 [francois]
+1
15:25:03 [SeanP]
+1
15:25:24 [jo]
+1
15:25:32 [rob]
RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 This is out of scope for our document but may have interest for a general transformation vocab
15:26:09 [francois]
Close ACTION-868
15:26:09 [trackbot]
ACTION-868 Review OMA STI to see if there's something relevant for CT for LC-2051 closed
15:26:21 [rob]
Topic: Draft responses to "resolved no" comments
15:26:55 [rob]
francois: reminder to everyone to propose responses back to contributors ASAP
15:28:01 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 LC-2053
15:28:10 [rob]
francois: postponed LC-2053 response recently
15:28:17 [jo]
i/->/Topic: LC-2053
15:28:39 [rob]
... about classes of device
15:30:42 [rob]
... and section 4.1.5 of the old draft
15:36:10 [ecasais]
ecasais has joined #bpwg
15:36:14 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 LC-2053
15:37:17 [francois]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053
15:37:28 [ecasais]
ecasais has joined #bpwg
15:38:06 [rob]
jo: Eduardo can you please clarify what you want from LC-2053
15:38:06 [jo]
ACTION: casais to review LC-2053 and clarify to group
15:38:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-880 - Review LC-2053 and clarify to group [on Eduardo Casais - due 2008-11-18].
15:38:30 [rob]
Topic: Unclear form encoding must be preserved for the server
15:38:49 [rob]
francois: again triggered by one of Eduardo's comments
15:40:30 [rob]
... current wording is unclear about if a CT-proxy must roll-back encoding changes made in responses when a form is submitted
15:40:58 [rob]
jo: which exceptions are we talking about?
15:41:24 [rob]
francois: section 4.1.5
15:41:31 [francois]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-altering-header-values Alteration of HTTP Header Values
15:42:43 [rob]
... the previous draft talked about Content-Encoding changes in the body, this has been removed
15:43:34 [rob]
jo: we previously talked about transforming request bodies but decided we didn't add much (if anything) to the requirements that already exist
15:44:02 [rob]
... do we have anything to say on something happening today that we want to stop happening?
15:44:41 [rob]
Eduardo: the mowser transcoder doesn't handle Character-Encoding properly
15:45:08 [rob]
... eg UTF-8 characters end up as Latin-1
15:45:47 [rob]
jo: mowser hasn't been updated for a while and has lots of bugs, this is a known bug
15:46:37 [rob]
Eduardo: Vodafone ES and PT transcoders don't handle numerical entities well
15:47:25 [rob]
jo: but these are clear bugs, not debatable ambiguities
15:48:11 [rob]
... so avoiding carelessness or error is not part of our specification
15:49:27 [rob]
francois: we talked about adding Encoding to the appendix E list
15:49:57 [rob]
... as merely a list of heuristics
15:50:02 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding so we have decided to leave it
15:50:32 [rob]
... was written as "recoded or restructured"
15:51:27 [rob]
jo: I remember something about this but could not find a resolution to follow when writing the latest draft
15:51:48 [rob]
... so here is one:
15:53:18 [rob]
jo: I don't think we need to talk about transforming the encoding of a request body
15:53:53 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding and to note that this is an example of a heuristic that the proxy may take into account when transforming content if it thinks that the encoding provided may mis-operate when presented on the client
15:54:44 [rob]
francois: the only case is when the encoding of the response has been changed and the client is then submitting a form from that response
15:55:55 [rob]
Eduardo: this isn't a heuristic, it's a rule
15:57:55 [rob]
rob: yes, the rule is if you change Character-Encoding in one direction (server-to-phone) you have to change it in the other direction (phone-to-server) as well
15:59:11 [rob]
Jo: we're not in the business of specifying how to transform images, HTML etc, so we don't need to specify this either
16:00:21 [rob]
... this is not our job to write a "building transcoders for dummies" book
16:01:36 [rob]
francois: I second that point, we don't need to expand on that in the Guidelines
16:02:17 [rob]
jo: do we want to add this to 4.2.8.1? Because it's not a heuristic
16:02:55 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding (which we don't intend to say) and add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so that character encoding is specifically referred to
16:03:09 [rob]
+1
16:03:18 [francois]
+1
16:03:18 [SeanP]
+1
16:03:21 [tomhume]
+1
16:03:37 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding (which we don't intend to say) but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so that character encoding is specifically referred to
16:03:42 [rob]
RESOLUTION: On the subject of character encoding, we have revisited it and we still can't think of anything useful other than "avoid bugs" when transforming between character encoding (which we don't intend to say) but add it to the list in 4.2.8.1 so that character encoding is specifically referred to
16:05:20 [jo]
ACTION: jo to enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc.
16:05:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-881 - Enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc. [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-11-18].
16:06:02 [rob]
Eduardo: do we need to point out the requirements of what the server expects?
16:06:38 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: do not discuss alteration of request body in respect of character encoding
16:08:31 [rob]
francois: do we need to mention that altering the request-body isn't envisaged except "rolling back" changes like Character-Encoding?
16:09:17 [francois]
+1
16:09:23 [SeanP]
+1
16:09:24 [tomhume]
+1
16:09:53 [rob]
rob: there are a few other changes that need rolling back too - for example pasting back together inputs that got split amongst sub-pages
16:09:54 [rob]
+1
16:10:03 [rob]
RESOLUTION: do not discuss alteration of request body in respect of character encoding
16:11:27 [Zakim]
-tomhume
16:11:28 [Zakim]
-francois
16:11:28 [Zakim]
-jo
16:11:30 [Zakim]
-SeanP
16:11:31 [Zakim]
-rob
16:11:33 [Zakim]
-Eduardo
16:11:34 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG(CTTF)10:00AM has ended
16:11:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were francois, tomhume, +41.31.972.aaaa, +41.31.972.aabb, +64550aacc, rob, SeanP, Eduardo, jo
16:13:47 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:13:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:14:18 [rob]
rob has left #bpwg
17:35:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #bpwg
17:52:55 [francois]
RRSAgent, bye
17:52:55 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-actions.rdf :
17:52:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: casais to review LC-2053 and clarify to group [1]
17:52:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-irc#T15-38-06-1
17:52:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jo to enact resolution on 4.2.8.1 ref adding character-encoding to the list of format, layout, dimensions etc. [2]
17:52:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-bpwg-irc#T16-05-20