IRC log of bpwg on 2009-03-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:19:28 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #bpwg

13:19:28 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-irc

13:19:30 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:19:30 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #bpwg

13:19:32 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be BPWG

13:19:32 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 11 minutes

13:19:33 [trackbot]

Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13:19:33 [trackbot]

Date: 10 March 2009

13:22:40 [dom]

Chair: DKA

13:23:02 [dom]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0054.html

13:24:16 [dom]

Regrets: Francois, Jo, Miguel, Manrique, Yeliz, Adam, Sangwhan, Abel, Nacho, Bruce

13:25:25 [jeffs]

jeffs has joined #bpwg

13:26:17 [rob]

rob has joined #bpwg

13:26:50 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started

13:26:57 [Zakim]

+ +1.585.278.aaaa

13:27:44 [jeffs]

zakim, aaaa is jeffs

13:27:44 [Zakim]

+jeffs; got it

13:29:06 [dom]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0054.html

13:29:27 [dom]

Regrets+ Tom

13:30:25 [Zakim]

+Dom

13:30:48 [Zakim]

+??P14

13:30:50 [jeffs]

s/scolar/scholar

13:30:56 [achuter]

zakim, ??P14 is me

13:30:56 [Zakim]

+achuter; got it

13:31:09 [DKA]

ring ring

13:31:21 [DKA]

zakim fail

13:31:35 [Zakim]

+ +0774811aabb

13:31:41 [DKA]

zakim, aabb is me

13:31:41 [Zakim]

+DKA; got it

13:33:19 [Zakim]

+ +0207287aacc

13:33:28 [rob]

zakim, aacc is me

13:33:29 [Zakim]

+rob; got it

13:34:14 [SeanP]

SeanP has joined #bpwg

13:34:31 [dstorey]

dstorey has joined #bpwg

13:34:36 [DKA]

zakim, who is here?

13:34:36 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jeffs, Dom, achuter, DKA, rob

13:34:37 [Zakim]

On IRC I see dstorey, SeanP, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, achuter, DKA, trackbot

13:34:52 [dstorey]

having troubles getting the conference phone to accept the passcode

13:35:14 [DKA]

Scribe: Jeff

13:35:17 [dom]

scribeNick: jeffs

13:35:21 [DKA]

ScribeNick: jeffs

13:35:49 [DKA]

Topic: Questionnaire on the TPAC

13:36:03 [Zakim]

+ +0472369aadd

13:36:06 [jeffs]

Topic: Questionnaire on TPAC

13:36:13 [Zakim]

+ +1.630.414.aaee

13:36:21 [SeanP]

Zakim, aaee is me

13:36:21 [Zakim]

+SeanP; got it

13:36:33 [dom]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2009Mar/0020.html Whether BPWG will be at TPAC 2009 in Santa Clara, Nov 2009

13:36:35 [jeffs]

simultaneous TPAC and AC meeting 2-6 November in Santa Clara

13:36:43 [EdC]

EdC has joined #bpwg

13:37:09 [jeffs]

Dan: do we really think the Group's work will be competed by then?

13:37:15 [DKA]

Yes, Ed, there is a BPWG.

13:37:36 [jeffs]

Dom: it appears unlikely both CT and MWAppsBP completed by the end of june

13:37:41 [Zakim]

+ +41.31.972.aaff

13:37:41 [dstorey]

i've joined the call, not sure how to match my number to my irc name though

13:38:01 [dom]

zakim, aaff is dstorey

13:38:01 [Zakim]

+dstorey; got it

13:38:02 [jeffs]

Dom: would not be surprised if it took us until the end of this calenda year.

13:38:22 [jeffs]

Dan: wondering how many people from EU will be able to attend

13:38:52 [jeffs]

Dom: plan at this time is to add $15/day fee to cover meeting costs for TPAC/AC in Nov

13:38:54 [dom]

"The current plan is to hold Group meetings on Monday 2, Tuesday 3, Thursday 5, and Friday 6 November. The Technical Plenary Day would be held all day Wednesday 4 November. The AC Executive Session would start on the evening of Tuesday 3 November and will be continued in the afternoon of Thursday 5 November. We also plan to charge a registration fee of $50/day to defray a portion of the expenses (more details forthcoming)."

13:39:02 [dom]

s/$15/$50/

13:39:10 [DKA]

q?

13:39:11 [jeffs]

Dan: can we do a quick poll on the Web?

13:39:16 [DKA]

zakim, who is here?

13:39:16 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jeffs, Dom, achuter, DKA, rob, +0472369aadd, SeanP, dstorey

13:39:18 [Zakim]

On IRC I see EdC, dstorey, SeanP, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, achuter, DKA, trackbot

13:39:21 [jeffs]

Dom: can we do a quick round on this call

13:39:28 [jeffs]

+1 for me to be there

13:39:40 [DKA]

+1

13:39:47 [dstorey]

probably +1 too

13:39:53 [dom]

[I probably would go, whether or not BPWG meets there]

13:39:53 [SeanP]

+1

13:39:54 [jeffs]

Dan: if there is a reason to meet, Dan will be there too (probably maybe)

13:39:58 [rob]

+0.5 for me

13:40:00 [EdC]

-1

13:40:08 [achuter]

zakim, mute me+1 probably

13:40:08 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'mute me+1 probably', achuter

13:40:14 [achuter]

+1 probably

13:40:39 [achuter]

I may also have other WG meetings then

13:40:45 [jeffs]

Dan: wants conditional Web-based poll - to determine if we should reserve a spot

13:40:53 [jeffs]

Dom: will send out a poll

13:41:25 [jeffs]

Dom: maybe this will have to be decided by the Chairs on the basis of the poll

13:41:35 [jeffs]

Dan: let us do a poll and ask ppl to respond by friday

13:41:44 [dom]

ACTION: Dom to create a poll to check who would attend at a F2F in TPAC

13:41:44 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-914 - Create a poll to check who would attend at a F2F in TPAC [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2009-03-17].

13:42:16 [jeffs]

Dan: Francois created a face-to-face mtg logistics page

13:42:27 [jeffs]

Topic: CT (defer)

13:42:48 [dom]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-CT-heuristics/results

13:43:09 [jeffs]

Dan: we still need ppl to respond to the poll, ASAP (today)

13:43:33 [jeffs]

Dan: discussion deferred awaiting more responses

13:43:48 [jeffs]

Dom: let us look at the current respnses

13:44:00 [jeffs]

s/respnses/responses

13:44:23 [jeffs]

Dan: poll referred to is addendum on the MWAPB

13:44:27 [dom]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-addendum-feedback/results

13:44:52 [jeffs]

Dom: comments need to be taken into account

13:45:32 [jeffs]

Dan: how should we orchestrate the additional work which needs to be accomplished?

13:46:00 [jeffs]

Dan: would a focused editorial session on this topic work?

13:46:49 [jeffs]

Dan: another option would be focused time or a breakout at the f2f focused on MWApps

13:47:47 [jeffs]

Dan: teleconf attendance at mtg should not be a problem

13:48:01 [jeffs]

Dan: moving on to next item

13:48:13 [jeffs]

Topic: Mandatory Heuristics issues

13:48:21 [achuter]

zakim, mute me

13:48:21 [Zakim]

achuter should now be muted

13:48:24 [jeffs]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-CT-heuristics/results

13:48:55 [jeffs]

Dom: running problem - should we mandate things ref to transcoding madating yes/no

13:49:26 [jeffs]

Dom: most say "yes, no transcoding" with comments in other direction from Sean

13:49:42 [jeffs]

Dom: pls express opinion via poll ASAP

13:50:18 [DKA]

zakim who is here?

13:50:28 [jeffs]

Dan: thinks we should take a resolution on this as it is a SHOULD requirement

13:50:36 [DKA]

zakim, who is here?

13:50:36 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jeffs, Dom, achuter (muted), DKA, rob, +0472369aadd, SeanP, dstorey

13:50:38 [Zakim]

On IRC I see EdC, dstorey, SeanP, rob, jeffs, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, achuter, DKA, trackbot

13:51:23 [jeffs]

Sean: there seems to be some agreement that it should be a SHOULD-level requirement, unless the user has requested that the transformation be allowed

13:51:30 [jeffs]

Sean: would be okay with that

13:52:01 [jeffs]

Dom: can I take this as meaning you would not raise a formal objection?

13:52:09 [jeffs]

Sean: I would not raise a formal objection

13:52:24 [jeffs]

Dan: asks Dom to raise formal resolution

13:52:28 [jeffs]

Dom: okay

13:52:46 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: a CT proxy SHOULD NOT transform a page that matches well-known mobile heuristics (to be defined) unless the user has explicitly requested it

13:53:03 [DKA]

+1

13:53:10 [SeanP]

+1

13:53:10 [dom]

+1

13:53:11 [jeffs]

+1

13:53:31 [jeffs]

RESOLUTION: a CT proxy SHOULD NOT transform a page that matches well-known mobile heuristics (to be defined) unless the user has explicitly requested it

13:53:41 [Zakim]

-SeanP

13:53:43 [dom]

ISSUE-268?

13:53:43 [trackbot]

ISSUE-268 -- Test cases to illustrate mobile web application best practices -- OPEN

13:53:43 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/268

13:53:53 [jeffs]

Dan: are there additional sub-issues?

13:53:56 [dom]

ISSUE-286?

13:54:00 [trackbot]

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

13:54:00 [trackbot]

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

13:54:20 [EdC]

+1

13:54:46 [DKA]

q?

13:54:55 [jeffs]

Dan: my impression we need more discussion on the heuristics themselves

13:54:57 [Zakim]

+SeanP

13:55:02 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobile doctypes (XHTML MP and Basic, WML, iMode) is a recognized mobile heuristic

13:55:15 [jeffs]

+1

13:55:16 [DKA]

+1

13:55:16 [EdC]

+1

13:55:17 [rob]

+1

13:55:19 [SeanP]

+1

13:55:24 [jeffs]

RESOLUTION: mobile doctypes (XHTML MP and Basic, WML, iMode) is a recognized mobile heuristic

13:55:36 [jeffs]

s/is/are

13:55:37 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href=""/> and <link rel="alternate" media="all" href=""/> are a recognized mobile heuristic

13:56:05 [DKA]

+1

13:56:09 [jeffs]

+1

13:56:11 [EdC]

+1

13:56:18 [SeanP]

q+

13:56:31 [DKA]

ack seanp

13:56:42 [jeffs]

Dan: to be clear, are we limiting the allowed heuristics to what we list

13:56:56 [jeffs]

Dom: media="all" means page is for all defined media types

13:57:32 [jeffs]

Sean: if media="all" is there def a handheld page?

13:58:12 [jeffs]

Dom: "all" is supposed to include "handheld"

13:58:17 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href=""/> is a recognized mobile heuristic

13:58:53 [jeffs]

Dan: this also relates to my issue, are we telling ppl you SHOULD use these heuristics and NOT any others?

13:59:10 [rob]

+1

13:59:13 [SeanP]

+1

13:59:16 [jeffs]

Dom: we are saying you have to respect these heuristics, but are not constrained from using your own in addition

13:59:19 [DKA]

+1

13:59:22 [jeffs]

+1

13:59:35 [jeffs]

RESOLUTION: <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href=""/> is a recognized mobile heuristic

13:59:42 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: MIME Types defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-Example-Content-Types minus application/xhtml+xml are mobile heuristics

13:59:53 [rob]

+1

14:00:02 [jeffs]

+1

14:00:07 [DKA]

+1

14:00:08 [dstorey]

+1

14:00:30 [EdC]

+1

14:00:39 [SeanP]

+1

14:00:45 [achuter]

0

14:00:47 [jeffs]

RESOLUTION: MIME Types defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-Example-Content-Types minus application/xhtml+xml are mobile heuristics

14:01:35 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: a mobileOK claim is a mobile heuristic

14:01:42 [jeffs]

Dan: let us make an informative note that vendors may also wish to respect a mobileOK client

14:02:50 [jeffs]

Dan: let our document not be gated by POWDER

14:03:43 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: a mobileOK claim is a mobile heuristic, but marked as a "feature at risk"

14:03:50 [jeffs]

+1

14:04:00 [dom]

+1

14:04:05 [EdC]

q+

14:04:05 [DKA]

+1

14:04:06 [SeanP]

+1

14:04:11 [DKA]

ack ed

14:04:40 [jeffs]

Ed: is that just at the level of an idea or defined in doc?

14:05:21 [jeffs]

Dan it is defined but insufficient implementation experience

14:05:27 [rob]

+1

14:05:28 [EdC]

+1

14:05:31 [jeffs]

s/Dan/Dom

14:05:42 [jeffs]

RESOLUTION: a mobileOK claim is a mobile heuristic, but marked as a "feature at risk"

14:06:01 [EdC]

q+

14:06:04 [DKA]

ack ed

14:06:06 [jeffs]

Dan: can we then close ISSUE-286, chorus of "no"

14:06:09 [EdC]

Microsoft-specific meta-tag

14:06:10 [EdC]

"MobileOptimized" intended to identify Mobile-IE optimized

14:06:10 [EdC]

content.

14:06:10 [EdC]

<meta name="MobileOptimized" content="nnn">

14:06:10 [EdC]

where nnn is a number of pixels.

14:06:47 [dom]

-1 on MobileOptimized

14:06:56 [jeffs]

Dan: asks Ed for URI to document about this issue on MSDN

14:07:10 [dom]

-> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms890014.aspx Definition of mobileOptimized in MSDN

14:07:32 [dstorey]

If it a IE thing, it may risk Pocket IE optimised stuff

14:07:35 [jeffs]

Dom: not very widely deployed so does not need to be on the list

14:07:50 [EdC]

It is defined here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms890014.aspx

14:08:09 [dom]

-> http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/UsingtheViewport/chapter_4_section_5.html safari viewport

14:09:12 [dstorey]

So far WebKit, Opera Mobile, and I think Opera Mini

14:09:40 [rob]

q+

14:09:43 [jeffs]

Dan: asking what should be on the list

14:10:01 [EdC]

q+

14:10:07 [jeffs]

Dan: does it make sense to be more permissive now and cut down later based on community feedback?

14:10:09 [DKA]

ack rob

14:10:34 [jeffs]

Rob: these things tend to be designed for small devices anyway

14:10:43 [dom]

+1 on keeping the list as short as possible for next draft

14:11:03 [DKA]

ack edc

14:11:06 [DKA]

q?

14:11:22 [jeffs]

Dan: becomes an issue with higher-res/browser-capability smartphone

14:11:54 [jeffs]

Rob: difficult to distinguish when represented as HTML

14:12:32 [jeffs]

Dom: tends towards keeping list as short as possible and looking for feedback on what to include in the end

14:12:48 [jeffs]

Dan: what about including these 2 as editorial note

14:13:07 [EdC]

Unsure or in section E?

14:13:12 [jeffs]

would vote for including Viewport

14:13:33 [jeffs]

Dan: asking for proposed resolution

14:13:51 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is a proposed mobile heuristic, as an editors note

14:13:58 [jeffs]

+1

14:14:23 [EdC]

Where do editors' notes appear in the document?

14:14:48 [dstorey]

tentatively +1 but wil lhave to look at what params are set in the viewport

14:15:05 [SeanP]

0 (because I don't know enought about it right now)

14:15:25 [jeffs]

Dom: include a note saying asking for feedback on including Viewport in the list of heuristic

14:16:03 [DKA]

+1

14:16:04 [EdC]

Is viewport specifically iPhone specific, or more generally WebKIT? If the latter, found in desktop browsers?

14:16:07 [jeffs]

http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html#//apple_ref/html/const/viewport

14:16:27 [jeffs]

for all the viewport properties

14:16:42 [jeffs]

Dom: works on a number of smartphne browsers

14:17:02 [jeffs]

s/smartphne/smartphone

14:17:24 [rob]

0

14:17:41 [EdC]

0 (what about the parameters that distinguish viewports for mobiles?)

14:17:42 [jeffs]

for Apple docs on Viewport attributes and uses: http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html#//apple_ref/html/const/viewport

14:17:53 [jeffs]

Dan: thinks we should take a resolution

14:18:46 [jeffs]

dstorey: this is not mobile-specific

14:19:25 [jeffs]

Dom: as this is not a declaration that you are creating mobile content, this should be taken as a clue

14:19:47 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a proposed mobile heuristic, since it is not an explicit declaration of mobile content

14:19:56 [EdC]

+1

14:20:14 [jeffs]

hmmmmm, think I am a -1 on this right now

14:20:37 [SeanP]

+1

14:20:38 [DKA]

+0

14:20:47 [jeffs]

why does a heuristic have to be solely about mobile? can it not be about displays and germane to mobile?

14:21:53 [jeffs]

Dom: WRT jeffs question - scope of CT document is only to regulate things about mobile

14:21:56 [dom]

zakim, who's noisy?

14:22:01 [jeffs]

q+

14:22:06 [dom]

ack jeffs

14:22:08 [Zakim]

dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Dom (5%)

14:22:10 [DKA]

q?

14:22:12 [dom]

zakim, mute me

14:22:12 [Zakim]

Dom should now be muted

14:22:20 [DKA]

Scribe: Dan

14:22:23 [DKA]

ScribeNick: DKA

14:22:44 [DKA]

Jeff: We're talking about regulating within the mobile domain - I don't see how this (viewport) is out of scope.

14:22:45 [dom]

ack me

14:23:39 [SeanP]

q+

14:23:39 [DKA]

Dom: [rephrasing] meta name=viewport could be used for a tv screen where resolution is limited but you don't have other mobile limitations - as such it's not an explicit indication that a page is intended for mobile.

14:24:19 [EdC]

This seems a similar issue as the media="all" for CSS.

14:24:21 [DKA]

Jeff: Seems to me that just because it can be used for other display devices doesn't mean it can't be used as an explicit heuristic in a mobile context. We're talking about what the mobile browser will or won't do when it hits this tag.

14:25:41 [DKA]

Dom: in the case where you're designing a tv-specific page and you're using heavy images, you use meta name=viewport to say that the expected width is 600 pixesl wite but that doesn't mean your page is designed for mobile - so a proxy in this specific case should transform the content.

14:25:59 [DKA]

Jeff: Just looking at one thing doesn't make sense...

14:26:32 [DKA]

Dom: We're not saying ct proxies must not used meta-name=view port as a heuristic. What we're saying is that it's not sufficient.

14:27:05 [DKA]

Dom: We are also saying that as soon as you encounter one of the heuristics you shoul not transform.

14:27:10 [DKA]

Jeff: OK

14:27:19 [DKA]

Jeff: Will you not mention viewport at all?

14:27:26 [DKA]

Dom: Yes.

14:27:28 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it is not an explicit declaration of mobile content

14:27:34 [DKA]

Jeff: I'm not happy.

14:27:51 [DKA]

Jeff: Makes sense to use [viewport] somewhere.

14:28:16 [dom]

s/use/mention/

14:28:27 [DKA]

Dom: Could be in an appendix but could create confusion.

14:28:36 [dom]

ScribeNick: jeffs

14:29:21 [EdC]

Could be in section E, but then there should be a mention that the attributes associated to the tag must be analyzed to try to figure out whether the target is mobile or not.

14:29:59 [jeffs]

Dan: personally inclined to include it as a note, feedback from community will tell us if we need to mandate otehr heuristics

14:30:08 [SeanP]

+1

14:30:10 [jeffs]

s/otehr/other

14:30:11 [DKA]

+1 to not including viewport as a recognized heuristic

14:30:19 [EdC]

+1

14:30:36 [jeffs]

0

14:30:42 [dom]

+1

14:30:46 [rob]

0

14:30:59 [EdC]

so what about mobileoptimized ?

14:30:59 [jeffs]

RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it is not an explicit declaration of mobile content

14:31:30 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: including an editor's note on calling for more mobile-specific heuristics

14:31:31 [jeffs]

Dan: *now* can we close that issue?

14:31:44 [achuter]

0

14:31:44 [DKA]

+1

14:31:45 [EdC]

+1

14:31:53 [jeffs]

+1

14:32:02 [jeffs]

RESOLUTION: including an editor's note on calling for more mobile-specific heuristics

14:32:19 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="viewport" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it doesn't seem to widely-deployed enough to deserve mention

14:32:36 [DKA]

+1

14:32:49 [jeffs]

0

14:33:16 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: <meta name="mobileOptimized" /> is not a notransform-recognized mobile heuristic, since it doesn't seem to widely-deployed enough to deserve mention

14:33:22 [jeffs]

+1

14:33:28 [SeanP]

+1

14:33:40 [EdC]

-1 (but...)

14:33:42 [EdC]

q+

14:33:56 [dom]

ack Sean

14:34:03 [DKA]

q?

14:34:06 [dom]

ack EdC

14:34:11 [rob]

0

14:34:48 [jeffs]

EdC: on the one hand, could decide this is taken as a not-heuristic, on the other hand, could be in appendix

14:34:59 [jeffs]

Dom: we are just addressing mandated heuristicvs

14:35:09 [EdC]

+1 (not in mandated heuristics)

14:35:14 [jeffs]

s/heuristicvs/heuristics

14:35:39 [jeffs]

Dom: should we adress non-mandated heuristics now or later?

14:35:52 [jeffs]

Dan: let us look for community feedback first

14:36:11 [EdC]

What about an editorial note mentioning consideration for the mobileoptimized and calling for feedback?

14:36:56 [jeffs]

Dom and Dan: back and forth on whether we should be working with non-normative (or potentially so) heuristics

14:38:01 [jeffs]

Dom: the Q for me is: should we have it or weill it get outdated very quickly? do not wish to create confusion about the heuristics

14:38:10 [jeffs]

s/weill/will

14:39:04 [SeanP]

q+

14:39:06 [jeffs]

Dan: suggests not having such a scection unless enormous community feedback to deal w this

14:39:10 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we do not include a list of non-mandated heuristics in the document

14:39:13 [DKA]

ack seanp

14:39:21 [jeffs]

s/scection/section

14:39:22 [EdC]

-1

14:39:44 [jeffs]

Sean: this could be useful to content providers

14:40:09 [DKA]

q?

14:40:13 [jeffs]

Dom: if only useful to them, but not to content providers, should not be in this doc

14:40:34 [jeffs]

I for one think such a list is useful

14:40:48 [dom]

s/if only useful to them, but not to content providers, should not be in this doc/don't think it's useful to content providers if they can't rely on it to make decisions/

14:40:55 [jeffs]

Dan: who supports that resolution, pls?

14:41:46 [jeffs]

Dom: wants to create a new issue on this specific point

14:42:12 [jeffs]

Dan: wants to close larger issue we have and open new issue specific to this topic

14:42:18 [dom]

close ISSUE-286

14:42:18 [trackbot]

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

14:42:19 [jeffs]

+1

14:42:23 [EdC]

+1

14:42:46 [jeffs]

TOPC remaining CT issues

14:43:08 [EdC]

q?

14:43:19 [jeffs]

s/TOPC/TOPIC

14:43:25 [EdC]

q+

14:43:36 [jeffs]

Dan: suggests we close the call if no burning issues

14:44:15 [DKA]

ACTION-897?

14:44:15 [trackbot]

ACTION-897 -- Eduardo Casais to establish what best current practice is with regard the withrawal of use of X- once the non X- form is agreed -- due 2009-01-20 -- OPEN

14:44:15 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/897

14:44:29 [EdC]

lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0000.html

14:44:49 [jeffs]

Dom: shouldn't we talk the larger topic before we close the issue?

14:44:58 [jeffs]

Dan: okay

14:45:29 [jeffs]

s/shouldn't we talk the larger topic/shouldn't we talk about the larger topic

14:45:49 [jeffs]

Dan: wants to talk over in last 15 mins of mtg

14:46:06 [jeffs]

EdC: addressing the larger point of the X-Device field

14:47:11 [jeffs]

EdC: some proxies modify the header sent by the terminal, but then put in again as x-device- but x-headers are experimental only according to IETF

14:47:41 [Zakim]

-achuter

14:47:45 [jeffs]

EdC: current IETF practice allows registering both X-field and non-X-field headers for transition period

14:48:11 [jeffs]

EdC: this does not bring any benefits to proxy providers etc

14:48:34 [jeffs]

EdC: requires programming and communications overhead

14:49:16 [jeffs]

EdC: proposal is keep X-device header fields for the moment and indicate in CT guidelines these may become deprecated

14:49:53 [jeffs]

Dom: one proposal is to not say anything about additional headers to be sent

14:50:00 [dom]

s/one/another/

14:51:12 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we mandate sending X-device headers, and say they may get deprecated in the future

14:51:19 [dom]

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we do not mandate sending X-device headers

14:51:23 [EdC]

q+

14:52:29 [DKA]

q?

14:52:31 [jeffs]

EdC: we had already discussed some time ago and current version of the guidelines should say proxies should not modify, and if do should save original values in X-header fields

14:52:32 [DKA]

ack edc

14:53:09 [jeffs]

EdC: is this 2 resolutions or 1?

14:53:11 [SeanP]

q+

14:53:16 [DKA]

ack seanp

14:53:16 [jeffs]

Dom: choice of one or the other

14:53:44 [jeffs]

SeanP: didn't we settle on the 1st version last week?

14:53:56 [EdC]

q+

14:54:00 [jeffs]

I also remember settling on #1

14:54:12 [DKA]

q?

14:54:14 [DKA]

ack edc

14:54:17 [jeffs]

Dom: checking minutes

14:54:54 [jeffs]

EdC: my issue is that if we go for 2nd resolution, what do proxies send? original values or modified values?

14:54:58 [DKA]

+1 on number 1

14:55:09 [jeffs]

+1 on number 1

14:56:19 [jeffs]

EdC and Dom: back and forth

14:56:54 [SeanP]

+1 on 1

14:57:01 [jeffs]

Dan: I don't think we can take a resolution on this today

14:57:28 [rob]

+1 to #1 as well

14:57:29 [jeffs]

Dan: we need to record strong support for mandating, but we need to defer

14:57:42 [dom]

close ACTION-897

14:57:47 [trackbot]

ACTION-897 Establish what best current practice is with regard the withrawal of use of X- once the non X- form is agreed closed

14:58:22 [jeffs]

Dan: has draft agenda for f2f almost done, will try to get it out tomorrow

14:58:44 [Zakim]

-DKA

14:58:45 [Zakim]

-Dom

14:58:46 [EdC]

bye.

14:58:47 [Zakim]

- +0472369aadd

14:58:48 [Zakim]

-rob

14:58:50 [Zakim]

-SeanP

14:58:51 [jeffs]

Dan: time to say goodbye

14:59:11 [jeffs]

(waves at dom) thanks for all the work

14:59:24 [Zakim]

-jeffs

15:00:04 [Zakim]

-dstorey

15:00:05 [Zakim]

MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended

15:00:06 [Zakim]

Attendees were +1.585.278.aaaa, jeffs, Dom, achuter, +0774811aabb, DKA, +0207287aacc, rob, +0472369aadd, +1.630.414.aaee, SeanP, +41.31.972.aaff, dstorey

15:00:18 [rob]

rob has left #bpwg

15:00:30 [dom]

ISSUE-288 and ISSUE-289 created

15:00:37 [dom]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

15:00:42 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-bpwg-minutes.html dom

15:00:42 [dom]

zakim, bye

15:00:42 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #bpwg

15:37:26 [dstorey]

dstorey has joined #bpwg