IRC log of bpwg on 2009-03-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:22:43 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #bpwg

14:22:43 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-bpwg-irc

14:22:45 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

14:22:45 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #bpwg

14:22:47 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be BPWG

14:22:47 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes

14:22:48 [trackbot]

Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

14:22:48 [trackbot]

Date: 03 March 2009

14:23:06 [francois]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0000.html

14:23:14 [jeffs]

jeffs has joined #bpwg

14:23:54 [francois]

Chair: DKA

14:25:28 [rob]

rob has joined #bpwg

14:25:38 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started

14:25:45 [Zakim]

+ +1.585.278.aaaa

14:25:58 [jeffs]

zakim, aaaa is jeffs

14:25:58 [Zakim]

+jeffs; got it

14:26:01 [yeliz]

yeliz has joined #bpwg

14:27:04 [francois]

Regrets: jo, tomhume, nacho, miguel, jeffs, dom, BruceLawson, chaals, DavidStorey

14:27:07 [yeliz]

Hi jeff

14:27:31 [jeffs]

hey francois, I am here... no "regrets" <grin/>

14:28:06 [cgi-irc]

cgi-irc has joined #bpwg

14:28:52 [Zakim]

+Bryan_Sullivan

14:28:56 [Zakim]

-jeffs

14:28:58 [Zakim]

+jeffs

14:29:05 [achuter]

achuter has joined #bpwg

14:29:08 [francois]

Regrets- jeffs

14:29:49 [abel]

abel has joined #bpwg

14:29:55 [DKA]

Joining soon.

14:30:11 [Zakim]

+DKA

14:30:13 [jeffs]

zakim, who is making noise?

14:30:24 [Zakim]

jeffs, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeffs (31%), Bryan_Sullivan (18%), DKA (14%)

14:30:31 [Zakim]

+ +0207287aabb

14:30:54 [rob]

zakim, aabb is rob

14:30:54 [Zakim]

+rob; got it

14:31:28 [Zakim]

+francois

14:32:08 [DKA]

zakim, who is here?

14:32:08 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jeffs, Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, rob, francois

14:32:09 [Zakim]

On IRC I see abel, achuter, cgi-irc, yeliz, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, DKA, francois, trackbot

14:32:21 [rob]

Scribe: rob

14:32:28 [Zakim]

+??P7

14:32:29 [rob]

scribeNick: rob

14:32:35 [yeliz]

zakim, ??P7 is yeliz

14:32:35 [Zakim]

+yeliz; got it

14:32:43 [Zakim]

+ +0121707aacc

14:32:48 [yeliz]

zakim, mute yeliz

14:32:48 [Zakim]

yeliz should now be muted

14:33:04 [SeanP]

SeanP has joined #bpwg

14:33:24 [francois]

zakim, aacc is Bruce

14:33:24 [Zakim]

+Bruce; got it

14:33:35 [francois]

Regrets- BruceLawson

14:33:36 [brucel]

brucel has joined #bpwg

14:33:46 [francois]

zakim, Bruce is really brucel

14:33:46 [Zakim]

+brucel; got it

14:33:50 [EdC]

EdC has joined #bpwg

14:34:12 [rob]

Topic: Update on MWABP

14:34:44 [rob]

DKA: looking at traffic on the list, Adam says there's another draft pending

14:34:56 [cgi-irc]

zakim,code?

14:34:56 [Zakim]

the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), cgi-irc

14:35:18 [rob]

francois: Adam's working on it, he's doing it this week

14:35:24 [Zakim]

+SeanP

14:35:33 [DKA]

zakim, mute me

14:35:33 [Zakim]

DKA should now be muted

14:36:07 [jeffs]

adam: francois asking on voice if you are on the call

14:36:22 [Zakim]

+ +41.31.972.aadd

14:36:37 [francois]

zakim, aadd is EdC

14:36:37 [Zakim]

+EdC; got it

14:37:17 [Zakim]

+ +0207881aaee

14:37:28 [francois]

zakim, aaee is adam

14:37:28 [Zakim]

+adam; got it

14:37:32 [DKA]

zakim, unmute me

14:37:33 [Zakim]

DKA should no longer be muted

14:38:36 [francois]

q+

14:38:48 [rob]

adam: I've had another pass through the doc making changes agreed and hope to post this draft this week.

14:39:06 [rob]

adam: hope to have another draft before the F2F as well

14:39:07 [Zakim]

+Kai_Dietrich

14:39:10 [DKA]

ack fr

14:39:46 [rob]

DKA: Can we be in a position to address Last-Call comments at the F2F? Is this possible still?

14:40:53 [rob]

francois: I don't think we have any choice except to have a few more iterations, the document needs to be pretty much finished before Last Call

14:41:43 [jeffs]

what has happened with the whole transcoding/https issue, please??

14:42:09 [Kai]

Kai has joined #bpwg

14:42:11 [rob]

adam: Abel (who submitted the SVG BPs) suggested that these are not stand-alone BPs but support existing BPs

14:42:32 [francois]

jeffs, the whole transcoding/https issue is still on, but for the Content Transformation Guidelines, not for MWABP.

14:42:45 [rob]

... so we propose to remove the SVG section itself

14:43:21 [rob]

DKA: If there is no expertise in the WG then we should try to get feedback from elsewhere

14:43:41 [rob]

adam: I assume feedback will come to the public list? We've asked there.

14:43:45 [jeffs]

would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look??

14:43:59 [rob]

DKA: may need some outreach work if there's no response on the list

14:44:13 [jeffs]

+1 on including canvas...

14:44:20 [rob]

adam: I've also asked about Canvas experience

14:44:51 [rob]

DKA: these drawing mechanisms fall under the same umbrella

14:44:59 [jeffs]

would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? and would you like me to look at canvas materials??

14:45:12 [Zakim]

+Martin

14:45:29 [rob]

DKA: should we release another public draft now then?

14:45:30 [jsmanrique]

jsmanrique has joined #bpwg

14:45:39 [jeffs]

dan & adam: would you like me to try to get our RIT SVG-nut to take a look?? and would you like me to look at canvas materials??

14:45:43 [DKA]

Jeffs - yes and yes please.

14:45:47 [jeffs]

okay

14:45:52 [DKA]

:)

14:46:20 [rob]

adam: if public drafts encourage more feedback then maybe we should have more of them. We need more feedback.

14:46:31 [francois]

q+

14:46:43 [DKA]

ack fra

14:46:57 [rob]

brucel: I'll see ifOpera has more SVG experience to share

14:47:05 [jeffs]

dan: do you want to make me an action re canvas? or just report back more informally??

14:48:18 [jeffs]

dan: do you want to make me an action re canvas? or just report back more informally??

14:48:32 [rob]

francois: I agree we should publish publically as often as possible to get more feedback but it does delay work a bit because of the window for comments

14:49:26 [rob]

adam: Abel asks "It is going to be incorporated as concrete use cases for specific BPs?"

14:49:29 [Bryan]

Bryan has joined #bpwg

14:49:49 [rob]

Topic: Update on BP Addendum

14:49:52 [Kai]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0066.html

14:50:01 [Kai]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/att-0066/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090210.html

14:50:36 [rob]

Kai: several changes have gone into this doc...

14:51:38 [rob]

... have adopted the format that Dom suggested reducing the information to the minimum requireed

14:51:57 [rob]

... Doc is self-explanatory

14:52:29 [rob]

... Abstract and Intro now conform to Jo's text

14:53:20 [rob]

DKA: Is there anything else needed now (References, appendicies etc)?

14:53:48 [rob]

... some of the text is pretty telegraphic!

14:54:19 [rob]

Kai: that's intentional. This doc never had explanatory text in its scope

14:54:30 [EdC]

small question: in the "evaluation procedures": are the bullet points always to be checked sequentially as specified, or is the order not that strict?

14:54:52 [rob]

... Some of the devaluations need review, eg Device Properties

14:55:00 [francois]

q+

14:55:04 [rob]

... Did anybody read this doc?

14:55:36 [Zakim]

+ +03491121aaff

14:55:53 [achuter]

zakim, aaff is me

14:55:53 [Zakim]

+achuter; got it

14:56:01 [DKA]

ack francois

14:56:09 [rob]

DKA: Apparently! We intent to publish this doc before the F2F so timely review is essential

14:56:25 [jeffs]

+1 get docs out for reading well in advance of the f2f

14:56:39 [rob]

francois: Maybe 1 week for comments and resolve next week to publish or redraft?

14:57:08 [rob]

Kai: That'd be good

14:58:26 [rob]

francois: a questionnaire forces membes to respond and is a good way to ensure the document is reviewed

15:00:18 [rob]

DKA: can you do that Francois?

15:00:23 [rob]

francois: yes

15:00:56 [rob]

Kai: Thanks. I've got one small typo to correct, shall i do that now or just comment on it?

15:02:08 [rob]

francois: references section needs updating to match the style guide but isn't essential for the review

15:02:42 [rob]

Kai: OK, so these 2 points can be comments along with everything else from the questionnaire

15:03:05 [Kai]

Thanks to Manrique for helping out with the document!

15:03:18 [rob]

DKA: Good, hopefully there will be Champagne at the F2F then

15:03:38 [rob]

Topic: Update on CT

15:04:03 [rob]

francois: Haven't made much progress this past few weeks

15:04:33 [jeffs]

zakim ACTION jeffs to get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP

15:04:50 [rob]

... still uncertain about HTTPS link rewriting and security, Jo is working on new wording to move the discussion on

15:04:59 [jeffs]

ACTION jeffs to get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP

15:04:59 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-910 - Get review canvas tag materials and suggest how/if to address in BP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-03-10].

15:05:38 [jeffs]

ACTION jeffs to get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP

15:05:38 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-911 - Get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2009-03-10].

15:05:45 [rob]

... Also X-Device- prefix headers is an open issue

15:05:46 [francois]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0001.html Eduardo's proposal on X-Device-* HTTP headers

15:06:38 [rob]

... Eduardo's proposal is to stick with X-Device headers because there is no practical benefit in moving to registered headers

15:07:16 [francois]

zakim, who is making noise?

15:07:25 [jeffs]

-1 to X-Device- prefix headers... as I read IETF stuff, this would be "taky"

15:07:27 [Zakim]

francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bryan_Sullivan (7%), DKA (33%)

15:07:39 [rob]

... but there might be trouble ahead proposing "experimental headers" in the Rec

15:07:39 [jeffs]

s/"taky"/"tacky"

15:08:12 [Bryan]

there is a low buzz on my phone - analog noise - some wiring issue

15:08:32 [Bryan]

i can switch to mobile if needed

15:08:41 [Zakim]

-Kai_Dietrich

15:08:43 [rob]

jeffs: reading the IETF stuff it's definitely against using X-Device

15:09:58 [rob]

DKA: is there a middle way? To pursue registering a Device- header but in the Rec make it clear that X-Device is in widespread use?

15:10:09 [EdC]

q+

15:10:41 [DKA]

ack edc

15:11:12 [rob]

EdC: what is the practical benefit of registering?

15:11:55 [Bryan]

q+

15:12:08 [francois]

q+

15:12:17 [DKA]

ack bry

15:12:19 [DKA]

q?

15:12:32 [rob]

DKA: If you want to play nice in the Internet then the IETF who define HTTP set the rules and they say X- "experimental" headers need to be depricated eventually

15:13:02 [DKA]

ack franc

15:13:03 [brucel]

goodbye all; vaccination time

15:13:11 [Zakim]

-brucel

15:13:39 [rob]

Bryan: Registration and deprication takes a long time, so practically makes little difference

15:15:46 [rob]

francois: If we formally register the Device headers, then we need to be clear exactly why we need them and it's been argued it's a hack of arguable value it the CT Guidelines are followed as a whole.

15:15:46 [SeanP]

q+

15:15:55 [DKA]

ack sean

15:16:13 [rob]

... So we really need to tidy the use-case if we are going to register the header

15:16:37 [EdC]

I refer to my comments regarding long migration phase, HTTP header overhead, and temporary character to be replaced by a solution as POWDER.

15:17:23 [rob]

SeanP: the use-case is to allow an origin-server to log or vary it's behaviour even when content is being transformed

15:18:05 [rob]

francois: then the CT-proxy should not alter these HTTP headers

15:18:37 [EdC]

But we are not allowed to make standards in this group...

15:19:07 [rob]

DKA: there is a contradiction: do we need it at all? vs it's in such widespread use we can't depricate it

15:20:51 [SeanP]

q+

15:21:12 [DKA]

ack seanp

15:21:18 [rob]

... is the use-case of content-selection (eg which J2ME download) vs content-transformation one that justifies X-Device use?

15:22:51 [rob]

SeanP: the use-case is where the user has asked for desktop content (and spoofed the User-Agent). X-Device-User-Agent then allows the origin server to log or trace information

15:23:03 [EdC]

q+

15:23:25 [DKA]

ack edc

15:25:39 [rob]

EdC: The CT-proxies that systematically alter the User-Agent seem to regardless of the content. So maybe there isn't strong ground for registering this with the IETF

15:27:14 [rob]

DKA: Do you mean ask IETF if to register the header or ask IETF if we should be using the overall Device- header scheme at all?

15:27:46 [rob]

EdC: Yes

15:29:05 [jeffs]

+1

15:29:10 [francois]

q+

15:29:19 [DKA]

ack fran

15:29:53 [rob]

DKA: purely from IETF perspective, the only way forward is to say X-Device is used if User-Agent is altered, it is real advice to content providers. But don't propose registering the header because it's not seen as being a widely used use-case moving forwards

15:30:33 [jeffs]

from RFC 2076 (I think this is the right one) : '"experimental" This header is used for newly defined headers, which are to be tried out before entering the IETF standards track.'

15:30:40 [rob]

francois: then we'd have a normative problem - "a CT-Proxy MUST use X-Device-"

15:31:06 [EdC]

Jeffs: in practice X- has been interpreted as eXtension rather than eXperimental, and this for a long time...

15:32:17 [rob]

... the only solution I see is to move it to an informative section for content-providers

15:32:34 [rob]

... without mandating the CT-Proxies all use it

15:33:25 [SeanP]

q+

15:33:42 [EdC]

-1

15:33:42 [rob]

... I agree with Eduardo that if it is useful then registering with IETF would only make the mess greater

15:33:46 [DKA]

ack sean

15:34:26 [rob]

SeanP: I'd prefer it to be normative to avoid variations that we have at the moment

15:35:16 [jeffs]

agree w Dan's idea, put folks on notice in this doc and formally consult w IETF

15:35:24 [rob]

DKA: working with IETF does give notice that this will be deprecate at some stage, is that useful?

15:35:53 [rob]

... Is that acceptable? or a block to publication?

15:36:11 [rob]

francois: It won't block a Last-Call

15:36:18 [EdC]

q+

15:36:34 [DKA]

ack ed

15:36:51 [rob]

DKA: I want to decouple publication of the 1.0 document from IETF discussion

15:37:07 [DKA]

"may be deprecated"

15:37:23 [jeffs]

agree w "may be", more real

15:37:43 [rob]

EdC: Depricated doesn't mean replace X-Device- with Device- - it might mean change the scheme altogether

15:39:46 [rob]

DKA: Ed, can you sugest some new wording keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF that may depricate this in the future?

15:40:38 [francois]

ACTION Eduardo to suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF and may deprecate this in the future

15:40:38 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-912 - Suggest some new wording on X-Device-* HTTP header fields keeping the normative meaning but noting that we're working with IETF and may deprecate this in the future [on Eduardo Casais - due 2009-03-10].

15:40:47 [francois]

q+

15:40:49 [rob]

Topic: Update on F2F logistics

15:40:49 [SeanP]

q+

15:40:53 [EdC]

there was a last issue: mandatory "heuristics" for CT.

15:40:54 [DKA]

q?

15:41:10 [rob]

adam: Still OK to use Google in Victoria

15:41:41 [EdC]

OK, there is another fourth one: conformance statements (longer term)...

15:41:47 [SeanP]

q-

15:41:57 [rob]

francois: we're 10 or 11 people

15:42:00 [francois]

-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-March-2009/results Results of the F2F questionnaire

15:42:43 [SeanP]

q+

15:42:52 [DKA]

ack seanp

15:43:27 [rob]

SeanP: can we have the address please for booking?

15:44:19 [francois]

ACTION Dan to start agenda discussion for upcoming F2F in London

15:44:19 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-913 - Start agenda discussion for upcoming F2F in London [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-03-10].

15:44:21 [EdC]

Will there be conference calls during the F2F? If so, coordination with agenda and numbers to call?

15:44:26 [rob]

adam: I'll send logistics info after this call

15:44:50 [francois]

[I think so Eduardo, yes, I'll put the info on the page]

15:44:57 [jeffs]

conf call facilities for WG f2f would be A Good Thing

15:45:06 [francois]

ISSUE-286?

15:45:06 [trackbot]

ISSUE-286 -- Transformation of Mobile Content/Mandating some respect of some heuristics -- OPEN

15:45:06 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/286

15:45:12 [rob]

Topic: Update on CT

15:45:47 [rob]

francois: All the arguments are on the table but we still need consensus

15:46:29 [DKA]

q?

15:46:34 [DKA]

ack franc

15:46:45 [SeanP]

q+

15:46:53 [DKA]

ack seanp

15:48:10 [DKA]

q?

15:48:54 [rob]

SeanP: the reason I disagreed is that there is a continuum of content from lowest-common-denominator content to full desktop content and some of it may benefit from adaptation on certain devices

15:49:32 [SeanP]

q+

15:49:46 [DKA]

ack seanp

15:49:49 [EdC]

q+

15:49:52 [rob]

francois: the counter-argument is that the content-providers want control over how their content is presented to their customers

15:50:18 [rob]

SeanP: Cache-Control: no-transform provides that control

15:50:32 [DKA]

ack edc

15:50:40 [francois]

zakim, who is making noise?

15:50:48 [rob]

francois: with other side-effects and it requires the content provider changing their websites

15:50:51 [Zakim]

francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bryan_Sullivan (9%), rob (42%)

15:51:18 [rob]

EdC: Yes, we're recapping old arguments here

15:51:21 [jeffs]

+1 on SeanP's comment... when in doubt, leave up to page-server to specify if they so choose

15:53:36 [rob]

... and remember some content providers don't have much control over the headers their hosting service provides

15:54:10 [rob]

DKA: Can we resolvethis with a poll?

15:55:03 [rob]

francois: yes, something like "Do we mandate the heuristics? - Yes/No"

15:55:13 [SeanP]

q+

15:55:47 [DKA]

ack seanp

15:56:06 [jeffs]

as long as I am out of mtg by 11:30am EST I can attend any day m-th now

15:56:59 [rob]

DKA: this call is scheduled on US-time

15:57:34 [rob]

... and US moves to summer-time next week, 3 weeks before Europe does

15:57:35 [jeffs]

as long as I am out of mtg by 11:30am <whatever_East_Coast_time_is/> I can attend any day m-th now

15:58:37 [rob]

... We also have some absentees next few weeks so we will discuss on this on the mailing list

15:59:08 [jeffs]

http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc

15:59:22 [jeffs]

"spring forward"

15:59:45 [rob]

... But for next week we keep to US-time which will mean moving to 13:30 UTC next week

16:00:04 [jsmanrique]

see you

16:00:06 [yeliz]

yeliz has left #bpwg

16:00:06 [Zakim]

-DKA

16:00:07 [Zakim]

-achuter

16:00:08 [Zakim]

-Bryan_Sullivan

16:00:10 [Zakim]

-rob

16:00:11 [Zakim]

-francois

16:00:11 [Zakim]

-SeanP

16:00:14 [Zakim]

-jeffs

16:00:15 [Zakim]

-EdC

16:00:17 [Zakim]

-Martin

16:00:35 [Zakim]

-yeliz

16:00:48 [brucel]

brucel has left #bpwg

16:03:19 [abel]

abel has left #bpwg

16:03:56 [francois]

Zakim, who is on the call?

16:03:56 [Zakim]

On the phone I see adam

16:04:26 [francois]

zakim, drop adam

16:04:26 [Zakim]

adam is being disconnected

16:04:27 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended

16:04:29 [Zakim]

Attendees were +1.585.278.aaaa, jeffs, Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, +0207287aabb, rob, francois, yeliz, +0121707aacc, brucel, SeanP, +41.31.972.aadd, EdC, +0207881aaee, adam, Kai_Dietrich,

16:04:31 [Zakim]

... Martin, +03491121aaff, achuter

16:04:36 [francois]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

16:04:36 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-bpwg-minutes.html francois

16:16:13 [rob]

rob has left #bpwg