IRC log of bpwg on 2009-01-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:24:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:24:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:24:24 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:24:24 [tomhume]
14:24:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:24:26 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:24:26 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:24:27 [trackbot]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:24:27 [trackbot]
Date: 27 January 2009
14:24:40 [francois]
14:24:43 [francois]
Chair: DKA
14:25:50 [francois]
Regrets: abel, DavidStorey, Kai, SangwhanMoon, VicquiChan
14:27:22 [yeliz]
yeliz has joined #bpwg
14:28:20 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started
14:28:27 [Zakim]
14:28:39 [DKA]
zakim, p0 is me
14:28:39 [Zakim]
sorry, DKA, I do not recognize a party named 'p0'
14:28:46 [Zakim]
14:28:46 [DKA]
zakim, ??p0 is me
14:28:47 [Zakim]
+DKA; got it
14:28:49 [Zakim]
14:28:50 [Zakim]
14:29:04 [tomhume]
zakim, ??p1 is me
14:29:04 [Zakim]
+tomhume; got it
14:30:01 [Zakim]
14:30:50 [jeffs]
jeffs has joined #bpwg
14:30:54 [jo]
zakim, code?
14:30:54 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:31:40 [Zakim]
+ +3531522aaaa
14:31:40 [DKA]
zakim, who is here?
14:31:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, tomhume, Francois, +3531522aaaa
14:31:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jeffs, yeliz, Zakim, RRSAgent, tomhume, DKA, jo, francois, trackbot, dom
14:31:49 [jo]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:31:49 [Zakim]
+jo; got it
14:32:21 [Zakim]
14:32:29 [dom]
zakim, mute me
14:32:29 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
14:32:38 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
14:32:56 [DKA]
14:32:57 [Zakim]
14:32:57 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #bpwg
14:33:15 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
14:33:32 [Zakim]
14:33:35 [DKA]
zakim, who is here?
14:33:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, tomhume, Francois, jo, Dom (muted), Jeff, ??P6
14:33:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see SeanP, cgi-irc, achuter, jeffs, yeliz, Zakim, RRSAgent, tomhume, DKA, jo, francois, trackbot, dom
14:33:43 [achuter]
zakim, ??P6 is me
14:33:43 [Zakim]
+achuter; got it
14:33:44 [miguel]
miguel has joined #bpwg
14:34:06 [jo]
scribe: Jo
14:34:25 [jo]
Topic: F2F
14:34:27 [DKA]
14:34:30 [Zakim]
14:34:40 [Zakim]
14:34:51 [jo]
dka: London roolz
14:35:01 [jo]
... but we need to discuss a bit
14:35:10 [Zakim]
14:35:14 [jo]
... people from US may not be able to attend if we hold in London
14:35:16 [yeliz]
zakim, ??P9 is yeliz
14:35:16 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
14:35:24 [Zakim]
14:35:27 [EdC]
EdC has joined #bpwg
14:35:30 [jo]
... I'm going to be there anyway for the AC meeting as is Kai
14:35:44 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
14:35:44 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
14:36:04 [jo]
... plus as David Storey notes SxSW is also ..
14:36:05 [Zakim]
14:36:09 [jo]
... it's a trade off
14:36:31 [jo]
... balance of opinion is on London then I am happy with that (25-27 March)
14:36:40 [jo]
... no clear decision for London
14:36:48 [francois]
14:36:53 [jsmanrique]
jsmanrique has joined #bpwg
14:36:58 [DKA]
ack fran
14:37:09 [jo]
s/no clear decision for London/no clear decision ref Boston, London seems to be the winner
14:37:22 [jo]
Francois: what about Adam?
14:37:29 [jo]
Adam: Britannia Roolz
14:37:50 [jo]
s/Britannia Roolz/I'd prefer London, could make Boston though
14:37:59 [jo]
DKA: Can you host?
14:37:59 [Zakim]
14:38:07 [dom]
ack me
14:38:16 [jo]
Adam: sure but we may have a problem with NDA's being waived
14:38:30 [jo]
Dom: Can't be held in a place where an NDA is ruired
14:38:41 [jo]
14:38:53 [jo]
... but we did do it before at Google's office in LON
14:39:02 [Zakim]
14:39:06 [jo]
Adam: so I will chase up and see if we can follow that precedent
14:39:16 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009.
14:39:23 [dom]
-> Policy Regarding Non-Disclosure Agreements and W3C Meetings
14:39:38 [dom]
"W3C workshops, Technical Plenaries, Group meetings and other W3C-sanctioned events shall not be conducted on the premises of organizations that request W3C meeting participants to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to gain access to the host's facilities"
14:39:41 [Zakim]
14:39:43 [dom]
zakim, mute me
14:39:43 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
14:39:46 [yeliz]
zakim, ??P15 is yeliz
14:39:46 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
14:39:48 [jo]
dka: we'll leave the question of hosts open, and if Google can't do it then we should be able to do it at Vodafone
14:39:53 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
14:39:53 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
14:39:54 [DKA]
RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009.
14:40:22 [jo]
s/RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009//
14:40:24 [jo]
RESOLUTION: We will have the next f2f in London 25-27 March 2009
14:40:31 [francois]
ACTION: daoust to setup a registration poll for next F2F in London
14:40:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-903 - Setup a registration poll for next F2F in London [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2009-02-03].
14:40:34 [jo]
adam: need to have info on room sizes
14:40:47 [jo]
dka: francois, would you be so kind as to organise a poll?
14:40:55 [jo]
... I would guess around 20
14:41:21 [jo]
Topic: MWABP Update
14:41:47 [jo]
Adam: have gone through Jo's extensive comments
14:42:03 [jo]
... I raised an Issue yesterday, and would like to go through it
14:42:06 [francois]
14:42:15 [jeffs]
zakim, who is making noise
14:42:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', jeffs
14:42:21 [jo]
... I'll keep raising issues as I trip across things over the forthcoming weeks
14:42:33 [trackbot]
ISSUE-287 -- Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP -- OPEN
14:42:33 [trackbot]
14:42:53 [jo]
dka: good plan, wan't to open a discussion on how to get Ajax developers looking at this and engaing with it
14:43:08 [jo]
... anyone?
14:44:01 [jo]
... developer portals and Web sites, where we can get better community feedback
14:44:15 [jo]
adam: don't know of anything mobile specific
14:44:28 [jeffs]
+1 on site to allow dev feedback fm AJAX/Javascript devs... makes easier to solicit input from non-members
14:44:29 [jo]
dka: where do people hang out who are working on iPhone Web apps
14:44:47 [jo]
adam: sure there are Ajax discussion groups that would be a good place to go
14:44:51 [jeffs]
suggest we est a site so we can publicize
14:45:00 [rob]
rob has joined #bpwg
14:45:00 [Zakim]
14:45:13 [jo]
dka: need to think about where we are going to publicise
14:45:21 [jo]
... any android sites?
14:45:48 [dom]
hmm... no point of raising an issue if nobody has a plan to submit?
14:45:53 [jo]
... (dan discusses raising an Issue)
14:45:57 [dom]
ack me
14:46:16 [jeffs]
if group does not object, I will also start a thread on my "Center fot the Handheld Web" blog
14:46:23 [jo]
dom: an issue with a plan to action it is like ...
14:46:32 [jeffs]
14:46:42 [jo]
... unlikely to get progressed
14:46:46 [jo]
14:47:17 [francois]
+1 to jeffs
14:47:28 [jo]
... agree that we should get more feedback but think that someone needs to take an action to come back with a proposal or get on with some outreach
14:47:55 [jeffs]
14:47:57 [jo]
dka: jeffs, you can do some outreach?
14:48:08 [dom]
zakim, mute me
14:48:08 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
14:48:23 [jo]
jeffs: The idea of getting people to do outreach and gather stuff together makes sense
14:48:44 [jo]
... I can do a post on the Center for the Handheld Web blog
14:49:08 [jo]
... if you want other people to do outreach then they can point there or do their own
14:49:35 [jo]
ACTION: Jeffs to initiate discussion on his blog ref feedback on the MWABP
14:49:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-904 - Initiate discussion on his blog ref feedback on the MWABP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-02-03].
14:49:58 [jo]
ACTION: appelquist to initiate discussion on betavine ref feedback on MWABP
14:49:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-905 - Initiate discussion on betavine ref feedback on MWABP [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-02-03].
14:51:12 [francois]
14:51:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-287 -- Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP -- OPEN
14:51:12 [trackbot]
14:51:17 [jo]
adam: ISSUE-287 ...
14:51:39 [francois]
[I note the issue was raised as "RAISED", which hides it deep in the list of issues. The "OPEN" state should be preferred. An email should have been sent to the mailing-list but was not. That's all dom's fault, for sure.]
14:52:25 [jeffs]
to clarify, asking for feedback on MWABP in general or ECMAScript in specific?
14:53:04 [jo]
... 3.1.1 Retain Info for Personsalization ... and 3.1.2 Autoamtically identify users ...
14:53:18 [jo]
... aprat from Network Operators this is really the same thing
14:53:26 [jo]
14:53:45 [jo]
... kind of no-brainer ways of keeping track of users and their preferences
14:54:15 [jo]
... the gist is basically to identify user and minimise the input - the difference from BP1 being that there are more ways to do that nwo
14:54:22 [jo]
14:54:32 [jo]
dka: the how to do it can be merged if they are combined
14:54:55 [jo]
adam: they are basically sayiong the same thing, once they are combined though not sure of the difference to BP1
14:55:23 [dom]
[I have made sure new issues would appear as "open"; trying to figure out why issues aren't sent to the mailing list anymore]
14:55:33 [DKA]
Jo: I think we need to get to the bottom of authentication separately. I agree with Adam however on this point.
14:55:51 [dom]
[found why]
14:56:16 [jo]
adam: what does the team think we are trying to say with this best practice, i.e. what improtant info should be in here, rather than just adding details for the sake of it
14:56:32 [jo]
s/improtant /important /
14:56:45 [jo]
dka: can you do a proposal with a "before and after"
14:56:49 [jo]
adam: OK
14:56:56 [Zakim]
14:57:13 [jo]
Action: ref ISSUE-287 Adam to create a proposal for merge of 3.1.1. and 3.1.2
14:57:13 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ref
14:57:46 [jo]
Action: connors to create a proposal for merge of 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 ref ISSUE-287
14:57:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-906 - Create a proposal for merge of 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 ref ISSUE-287 [on Adam Connors - due 2009-02-03].
14:57:55 [dom]
akc me
14:57:58 [dom]
ack me
14:58:00 [jo]
Topic: The "lang" attribute
14:58:09 [jo]
dom: basically ...
14:58:42 [jo]
... I ran some MobileOK statistics and one of the biggest causes of error was the fact that XHTML Basic doesn't allow the lang attribute
14:59:15 [jo]
... at the same time I18N strongly recommends that in text/html you use both lang and xml:lang
14:59:37 [jo]
... so either you break good practice for mobielOK or for I18N
15:00:19 [jo]
... and the new orthodoxy is that any version of XHTML can be served as text/html (rather than only XHTML 1.0)
15:00:20 [francois]
15:00:40 [jo]
... XHTML2 WG is considering adding the lang attribute
15:01:04 [jo]
... by going through the "proposed edited rec" process
15:01:18 [jo]
... they are interested in support and assitance from BPWG
15:01:28 [jo]
... so are we interested in adding the lang attribute
15:01:34 [jo]
to XHTML Basic?
15:01:34 [Zakim]
15:01:40 [jo]
s/to/... to/
15:01:50 [EdC]
Fine with me, but as far as I know, most mobile devices supporting XHTML basic support XHTML basic 1.0, not 1.1.
15:02:00 [jo]
dka: <mumble mumble> non trivial
15:02:13 [brucel]
brucel has joined #bpwg
15:02:25 [jo]
dom: not difficult though proposed edited rec process, especially as limited in scope
15:02:33 [jo]
... they want us to say we support
15:02:50 [jo]
dka: I am supportive ... but hink that we need to understand more
15:03:08 [jo]
... if we support and they make a change will we make a change to the checker?
15:03:18 [jo]
... and so more content will become mobileOK
15:03:51 [jo]
dom: yes they would release a new DTD and we'd amek a trivial change to the checker and lots of sites would instantly become mobileOK
15:03:58 [jo]
dka: what is the time frame?
15:04:13 [jo]
... if it goes beyond June we are not around to make the change
15:04:59 [jo]
dom: given that we have a nromative dependency on XHTML Basic 1.1 we don't need a formal resolution to do ti, so even if the process take longer than the remaining time that is not a problem
15:05:13 [francois]
s/to do ti/to do it/
15:05:17 [dom]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the BPWG supports adding the lang attribute in XHTML Basic
15:05:23 [EdC]
15:05:26 [DKA]
15:05:31 [brucel]
15:05:31 [francois]
15:05:31 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG supports inclusion of lang attribute in all versions of XHTML and of upgrading checker to ake into account
15:05:37 [dom]
15:05:52 [DKA]
+1 to jo
15:05:52 [jo]
15:06:06 [EdC]
All versions means those specified by W3C -- not XHTML mobile profile...
15:06:16 [yeliz]
15:06:18 [jo]
[which one were people supoprting? mine is broader than Dom's?]
15:06:19 [EdC]
(not = not necessarily)
15:06:34 [DKA]
15:07:36 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG supports inclusion of lang attribute in XHTML and of upgrading checker to take into account
15:07:48 [jo]
15:08:11 [DKA]
15:08:14 [SeanP]
15:08:20 [EdC]
15:08:35 [jo]
RESOLUTION: BPWG supports inclusion of lang attribute in XHTML and of upgrading checker to take into account
15:08:50 [dom]
zakim, mute me
15:08:50 [Zakim]
Dom should now be muted
15:08:53 [jo]
Topic: HTTPS
15:08:56 [jo]
15:09:08 [jo]
q- jeffs
15:09:10 [DKA]
ack jeffs
15:09:10 [francois]
15:09:22 [jo]
ack f
15:09:46 [jo]
francois: this discussion is on MWABP rather than than CT
15:10:34 [jo]
... have had some feedback from the Web App Security Context group and think we will get feedback from them following their meeting tomorrw
15:10:52 [jo]
... so sugegst we postpone till next week
15:11:04 [jo]
15:11:12 [jo]
Topic: HTTPS qua CT
15:11:52 [jo]
francois: we need to rationalise the topic on content transformation, and Jo had an action but he hasn't done it yet
15:12:09 [jo]
... we have everything on the table and we need to make a decision
15:12:19 [DKA]
15:12:27 [jo]
... will we put soemthing in the guidelines and if so what would it be
15:12:33 [rob]
15:12:35 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:12:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dom
15:12:39 [francois]
ack rob
15:12:43 [jo]
15:13:00 [dom]
RRSAgent, make log public
15:13:13 [jo]
rob: I started the discussion off on what should be done to address the question of what to do if you are the "man in the middle"
15:13:21 [francois]
-> Rob's email on links rewriting
15:13:22 [jo]
... ref security
15:13:38 [jo]
... perhaps we should generalise the discussion rather than limiting to HTTPS
15:13:54 [jo]
... that was my intention in kicking the discussion off
15:14:15 [jo]
... but the discussion assumed the HTTPS context
15:14:54 [EdC]
and a third issue: general security considerations on transformations not necessarily dependent on URL rewriting, nor on HTTPS (cookies, referer, etc).
15:15:05 [jo]
francois: there are two questions, i) intercepting secure connections ii) rewriting links which triggers a number of cross site scripting problems
15:15:16 [jo]
... and other security issues
15:15:53 [jo]
... I think that we should have a "security consideration" section as proposed by Eduardo referencing what has been written by Rob
15:16:05 [dom]
zakim, who's noisy?
15:16:15 [jo]
... I hope we are clear that we can't recommend to break the secure connection
15:16:17 [Zakim]
dom, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Francois (45%), achuter (9%), EdC (13%)
15:16:26 [jo]
... we can't endorse that as a best practice
15:16:27 [dom]
zakim, mute achuter
15:16:27 [Zakim]
achuter should now be muted
15:16:41 [jo]
dka: what is the way out of this
15:17:02 [achuter]
zakim, mute me
15:17:02 [Zakim]
achuter was already muted, achuter
15:17:09 [rob]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Include a section on General Security Considerations, which is appliccable to "man-in-the-middle" transformations, irrespective of SSL
15:17:19 [jo]
francois: I think there should be a security consideration topic, more alerts
15:17:48 [jo]
q+ tos ay that jo has the action already
15:18:05 [jo]
q+ to say that jo has the action already
15:18:29 [jo]
ACTION: Jo to action his outstanding action
15:18:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-907 - Action his outstanding action [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-02-03].
15:18:46 [dom]
15:18:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-902 -- Jo Rabin to summarise current discussions on https link re writing -- due 2009-01-27 -- OPEN
15:18:46 [trackbot]
15:19:01 [dom]
zakim, who's noisy?
15:19:11 [Zakim]
dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: DKA (19%), EdC (4%), bruce (9%)
15:19:18 [dom]
close ACTION-907
15:19:18 [trackbot]
ACTION-907 Action his outstanding action closed
15:19:53 [jo]
dka: anything else?
15:20:34 [jo]
s/more alerts/or rather a security alert section/
15:21:25 [jo]
francois: I think we already resolved to change the link rewriting section - especially to remove the MAY as this would be to endorse the practice, which we don't
15:21:43 [EdC]
There are editorial issues, to be done conformance statements, mandatory heuristics, at least.
15:22:06 [jo]
... we really need a crystallization of the topic as it has spilled over into so many other areas
15:22:48 [jo]
Topic: Mandatory Heuristics
15:23:04 [francois]
15:23:04 [trackbot]
ISSUE-286 -- Transformation of Mobile Content/Mandating some respect of some heuristics -- OPEN
15:23:04 [trackbot]
15:23:31 [jo]
ferancois: sean - sumamry?
15:23:52 [jo]
sean: I raised this issue last week, but no email got sent out
15:24:34 [Zakim]
15:24:49 [jo]
... issue was raised about mandating heuristics around content-types and doctypes that are unambiguously mobile
15:24:54 [francois]
s/ferancois: sean - sumamry/francois: sean - summary
15:24:57 [jo]
... raised originally by Dom back in Nov
15:25:36 [jo]
... we discussed a couple of weeks ago and I said that if you don't allow transformation on mobile pages then this prevents link rewriting
15:25:44 [jo]
... and so you lose the proxy function
15:26:23 [jo]
... so I wrote up the issue of user choice to allow users to choose mobile pages and EdC brought sup some points which I tried to answer
15:26:28 [jo]
... and that is where we are
15:26:41 [dom]
(as I mentioned last week, this only applies to cases where the proxy rewrites links; when it does, we could allow only to rewrite links, so as to preserve the proxy function)
15:27:11 [jo]
francois: so we need to summarise where we agree and where we disagree
15:27:57 [EdC]
15:28:05 [jo]
... so we need to agree that we say that those heuristics SHOULD be respected but with the caveat that the user can express the choice to continue link re-writing
15:28:12 [jo]
ack me
15:28:12 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to say that jo has the action already
15:28:21 [DKA]
ack ed
15:28:44 [jo]
EdC: I don't think there is disagreement
15:28:50 [jo]
... idea is simple
15:29:23 [jo]
... if user doesn't want any kind of trasnformation then they get page untouched and they get links to non mobile sites
15:29:57 [francois]
15:30:12 [dom]
15:30:24 [dom]
ack me
15:30:34 [jo]
... but on the other hand if they allow transformed content then it is just a question of how the proxy works. Some will need to rewrite to keep users on mobile pages and others wont
15:30:42 [jo]
... it is just a question of implementation
15:31:10 [jo]
... saying SHOULD NOT is fine, you just need a reason to do otherwise
15:31:37 [jo]
dom: it's more complicated than that. If the Proxy works at netowrk level then requests get caught anyway
15:31:49 [jo]
... but for link re-writing proxies it is more difficult.
15:32:15 [jo]
... so this would prevent non netowrk level proxies from doing their job
15:32:33 [francois]
[Proxies SHOULD NOT transform explicit mobile content save links rewriting in Linked-mode proxies?]
15:32:38 [jo]
... so the CT guidelines could say that rewriting links is OK in this case
15:32:59 [EdC]
15:33:09 [jo]
... we should be as strict as possible for network level proxies but for link rewriting proxies, restrict as much as possible
15:33:14 [jo]
ack e
15:33:16 [DKA]
ack ed
15:33:36 [jo]
edc: if you have to rewrite then you will rewrite and that is included in the SHOULD
15:34:10 [EdC]
15:34:22 [jo]
dom: but that's not restrictive enough - so we need to explicitly limit what can be rewritten in those circumstances
15:34:41 [Zakim]
15:34:47 [SeanP]
15:34:56 [jo]
ack edc
15:35:43 [jo]
edc: the question of saying which restrictions is a long topic - we could open too big a can of worms and we won't be able to resolve it.
15:36:08 [jo]
... rewriting URLs in out of band proxies falls into that category
15:36:27 [jo]
dom: that would open the door to trasnforming everything
15:36:37 [jo]
edc: <scribe missed it>
15:37:01 [jo]
15:37:01 [francois]
15:37:35 [francois]
ack SeanP
15:38:00 [jo]
seanp: you know where I am coming from, if a user allows it then we should be able to transform sites
15:38:15 [jo]
... we gets lots of requests for this
15:38:22 [jo]
q+ to say that it is allowed
15:38:31 [EdC]
In short:CT-proxies should not modify mobile content -- except as strictly necessary to make desktop content accessible to mobile devices. URL rewriting is unavoidable for out-of-band proxies (i.e. those that do not capture all HTTP traffic by default). Other transformations are in principle not admissible.
15:38:33 [DKA]
ack jo
15:38:33 [Zakim]
jo, you wanted to say that it is allowed
15:39:08 [jo]
jo: we already say that users may request transformed content but that can't be the default assumption
15:39:27 [jo]
seanp: sounded like mobile was going to be treated differently to the mobile page
15:39:32 [jo]
jo: ah I see
15:39:39 [francois]
15:40:00 [jo]
ack f
15:41:34 [jo]
francois: doh?
15:43:05 [jo]
jo: I think that Sean was saying that we allow transformation of the request and therefore implicit requested transformation of the response (from desktop to mobile) but we haven't documented any facility for the user to request transformation of a mobile response. The one applies to the request and the other applies to the response irrespective of the request
15:43:10 [jo]
seanp: yes
15:43:23 [jo]
dka: jo can you scrivbe that as a resolution
15:43:30 [jo]
jo: no, not now I'm busy, dammit
15:44:25 [francois]
[Summary of what I think: we agree to mandate respect of explicit mobile pages, with 2 points to detail: 1. on the wording for proxies that operator in links-mode 2. user expression of choice for transformation of mobile pages]
15:44:43 [dom]
+1 to francois summary
15:44:50 [jo]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Introduce a section describing a non-defaultable user option to tranform responses irrespective of the transformation of the request, even where the response is apparently mobile according to the so-called mandatory heuristics
15:45:09 [dom]
on francois.2, I think we should keep it simple, and say your "deployment" doesn't conform when mobile page gets transformed
15:45:37 [SeanP]
What's meant by non-defaultable?
15:45:48 [EdC]
This seems to me splitting hairs. End-users are actually offered the following: leave everything untouched. Transform responses from desktop to mobile -- it might have some side effects on mobile pages depending on the implementation of the gateway, i.e. out-of-band might have to rewrite URL to external desktop sites. Transform mobile transactions for whatever other reasons.
15:45:55 [francois]
s/that operator/that operate
15:46:54 [dom]
<dom> on francois.2, I think we should keep it simple, and say your "deployment" doesn't conform when mobile page gets transformed
15:47:22 [EdC]
15:47:29 [francois]
ack EdC
15:47:31 [DKA]
ack ed
15:48:47 [jo]
edc: stunned by proposal of defaultable: simply put the user can have 3 choices - a) no transformation at all b) access desktop sites and transform c) some additional transformation
15:49:44 [jo]
dom: problem with the approach is that you can say that the user signed a contract that says everything gets trasnformed, so this is really not a viable choice
15:50:00 [jo]
... so we are really creating lots of loop holes [Emmental?]
15:50:15 [jo]
edc: didn't we say that these have to be opt-in
15:50:20 [SeanP]
15:50:32 [DKA]
ack seanp
15:50:34 [jo]
dom: isn't signing a contract opting in?
15:50:44 [jo]
edc: no you have to check what you want
15:50:46 [jo]
15:50:59 [dom]
q+ seanp
15:51:02 [dom]
ack jo
15:51:43 [jo]
jo: we say that preferences will be maintained on a site by site basis which goes some way to addressing Dom's point
15:51:59 [dom]
[but that doesn't match the everything/only dekstop/nothing approach that eduardo proposed, does it?]
15:52:27 [francois]
15:53:06 [francois]
ack SeanP
15:53:12 [jo]
seanp: ref dom's point ref the contract - I thought we moved moved it to an appendix to out of band means, and that we were going to an interstitial apporach - i.e. something you do on the phone and not something you do by contract
15:53:24 [francois]
s/moved moved/moved
15:53:27 [jo]
... and what about about the site by site thing
15:53:40 [jo]
... thought it was on a session basis
15:53:42 [DKA]
15:53:46 [jo]
jo: we say site by site
15:54:14 [dom]
-> Current section on user preferences
15:54:19 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Introduce a section describing a non-defaultable user option to tranform responses irrespective of the transformation of the request, even where the response is apparently mobile according to the so-called mandatory heuristics
15:54:23 [EdC]
Current version 4.2.2 User Preferences
15:54:23 [EdC]
Proxies must provide a means for users to express preferences for inhibiting content transformation. Those preferences must be maintained on a user by user and Web site by Web site basis.
15:54:24 [dom]
"Proxies must provide a means for users to express preferences for inhibiting content transformation. Those preferences must be maintained on a user by user and Web site by Web site basis. Proxies must solicit re-expression of preferences in respect of a server if the server starts to indicate that it offers varying responses as discussed under 4.2.6 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header."
15:55:41 [francois]
15:55:49 [jo]
dom: I think this is too detailed. It should be non-conformant
15:55:54 [DKA]
ack francois
15:55:57 [jo]
francois: I agree with Dom
15:55:58 [EdC]
The resolution proposal is convoluted.
15:56:05 [jo]
... isn;t 4.2.2 enough?
15:56:16 [jo]
... it's not limited to request or response
15:56:29 [jo]
... let's elave 'as is'
15:56:36 [dom]
15:56:37 [jo]
and mandate respect of explciit mobile site
15:56:50 [francois]
15:56:55 [jo]
15:57:22 [DKA]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: leave 4.2.2 as is and do not say anything about transformation of mobile-friendly content.
15:57:29 [francois]
s/and mandate respect/... and mandate respect
15:57:38 [EdC]
Basically, you could have many other transformation options: filter for viruses, translate from * to English, add dancing bears, etc. All these are user-selectable.
15:57:54 [jo]
PROPSOED RESOLUTION: We will not offer an explicit carve out for transforming mobile content at user request, transformation of such content is non-conformant
15:58:04 [dom]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mandate respect of heuristics (as SHOULD), with caveat on links rewriting
15:58:22 [francois]
+1 to both
15:58:35 [jo]
15:58:46 [SeanP]
15:58:53 [DKA]
ack sean
15:59:00 [jo]
seanp: liked the original one better
15:59:55 [jo]
... are we saying in the proposed resolution that if you transform mobile content then you are non conformant?
16:00:07 [jo]
francois: yes
16:00:23 [jo]
dka: isn't there a middle way?
16:00:29 [francois]
16:00:31 [jo]
dom: we need to take this to the list
16:00:45 [jo]
dka: thanks and good night
16:00:52 [Zakim]
16:00:54 [Zakim]
16:00:58 [Zakim]
16:00:59 [Zakim]
16:00:59 [Zakim]
16:01:00 [Zakim]
16:01:08 [miguel]
miguel has left #bpwg
16:01:18 [Zakim]
16:01:20 [Zakim]
16:01:22 [Zakim]
16:01:28 [Zakim]
16:01:48 [jo]
zakim, who is here?
16:01:48 [Zakim]
16:02:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see EdC
16:02:11 [jo]
zakim, drop edc
16:02:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see brucel, rob, yeliz, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, francois, trackbot, dom
16:02:26 [Zakim]
EdC is being disconnected
16:02:30 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended
16:02:32 [Zakim]
Attendees were DKA, tomhume, Francois, +3531522aaaa, jo, Dom, Jeff, achuter, adam, miguel, yeliz, SeanP, EdC, manrique, rob, bruce
16:02:56 [francois]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate francois
16:05:53 [brucel]
brucel has left #bpwg
16:15:19 [rob]
rob has left #bpwg
18:23:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #bpwg