14:27:54 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 14:27:54 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-bpwg-irc 14:27:56 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:27:56 Zakim has joined #bpwg 14:27:58 Zakim, this will be BPWG 14:27:58 ok, trackbot, I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM already started 14:27:59 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 14:27:59 Date: 02 February 2010 14:28:24 Chair: Jo 14:28:40 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Feb/0000.html 14:29:40 Regrets: tomhume, miguel, nacho, kai 14:29:59 +??P5 14:30:12 zakim, ??P5 is me 14:30:12 +jo; got it 14:30:14 DKA has joined #bpwg 14:30:25 cgi-irc has joined #bpwg 14:30:35 zakim, code ? 14:30:35 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), adam 14:30:47 +francois 14:30:50 achuter has joined #bpwg 14:31:16 EdC has joined #bpwg 14:31:23 +adam 14:31:48 +EdC 14:32:01 +DKA 14:32:06 zakim, who is here? 14:32:06 On the phone I see ??P3, jo, francois, adam, EdC, DKA 14:32:07 On IRC I see EdC, achuter, adam, DKA, Zakim, RRSAgent, jo, brucel, yeliz, francois, trackbot 14:32:12 zakim, mute me 14:32:14 +Alan_Chuter 14:32:14 francois should now be muted 14:33:15 probably 14:33:18 zakim, ??P3 is brucel 14:33:18 +brucel; got it 14:33:56 +??P11 14:34:01 Scribe: Dan 14:34:04 zakim, ??P11 is yeliz 14:34:04 +yeliz; got it 14:34:05 ScribeNick: DKA 14:34:08 zakim, mute me 14:34:08 yeliz should now be muted 14:34:29 -yeliz 14:34:30 Topic: BP2 14:34:30 ack me 14:34:52 Francois: The spec is ready to ship. We need to organize a transition call. 14:35:10 Francois: I prepared an implementation report template for MWABP. 14:35:34 Francois: Just waiting for the transition call to happen. 14:36:12 +??P11 14:36:16 Francois: (on what is a transition call) it's an internal review by the W3C Management to approve the transition of the specification to Candidate Recommendation. 14:36:20 zakim, ??P11 is yeliz 14:36:20 +yeliz; got it 14:36:25 zakim, mute yeliz 14:36:25 yeliz should now be muted 14:36:31 Jo: (inaudible) 14:36:47 +q 14:36:52 ack ed 14:37:02 Jo: The transition requires a formal review. 14:37:29 EdC: Does that mean in principle the [transition] can be rejected? 14:37:38 Francois: Yes - documented in the process document. 14:38:16 Francois: It doesn't happen often. We should be prepared to defend is the review by the external world. 14:38:35 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports Process document 14:38:44 q+ 14:38:52 ack f 14:39:29 Francois: There is one potential change we might need to make. On "how to implement the best practice: cache resources". 14:39:30 q? 14:39:39 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0013.html How to implement "cache resources" 14:40:10 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20100114#bp-conserve-fingerprint Cache resources BP in MWABP 14:41:02 Adam: I remember seeing the thread - I don't know what we use. I think we use hashcode - that will change when the resource changes - use the timestamp on the resource. Is there a standard hashing algorithm? 14:41:28 Jo: Someone did say that because the same resource may be served in different forms that just using the timestamp may not be enough. 14:42:04 I believe there were actually _TWO_ issues in the comments: (a) is the cache of just the HTTP header/transaction meta-information or of the entire resource itself. (b) if the latter, what is the recommended technical solution for a hash mechanism? 14:42:16 Adam: This is only to be seen by the local cache of any given browser. Maybe "which version of the resource" and its timestamp would be adaquate. 14:42:34 Francois: If we plan to update the BP then we should do it right now, before the transition call. 14:43:02 Francois: it's only in the "how to do it" section which is just an example. 14:43:15 Adam: We could add a bullet point to the description. 14:43:51 q+ 14:44:05 Francois: It doesn't strike me as substantive so it can wait... We can make it still in the future. 14:44:12 ack ed 14:44:29 Jo: let's note this and see if we get any more [similarly sized] changes. 14:45:01 EdC: 2 things - what the hash should be on and what technique to use to make the hash. 14:45:20 Adam: I think we can say that metadata is quite sufficient. We could hold off adding that clarification until later. 14:45:39 Jo: I think we just leave it for now and see if we get any other points of clarification. 14:45:45 Topic: CT Guidelines 14:46:03 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125.html CT guidelines version 1.x 14:46:08 Jo: ct guidelines 1x version published on monday last week. Francois sent some comments (thanks!) 14:46:13 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0023.html Francois's comments 14:46:39 Jo: Francois? 14:47:41 Jo: If it makes your life easier then why don't we agree to take the example out of normative language. 14:48:04 Just reply "header field must be added" in the example by "header field is added" 14:48:26 Francois: I don't mind having this normative duplication in there. We understand it's not an additional guideline. 14:48:38 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-original-headers section 4.1.5.5 14:48:41 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125.html#sec-original-headers the offending example 14:49:01 Just replace "header field must be added" in the example by "header field is added", and all should be well... 14:49:14 Jo: Change "must" for "would." 14:49:18 Francois: Fine. 14:49:26 Jo: (per EdC's suggestion) 14:49:54 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Replace "must" with "would" in example under 4.1.5.5 14:49:58 +1 14:50:00 +1 14:50:03 +1 14:50:13 RESOLUTION: Replace "must" with "would" in example under 4.1.5.5 14:50:32 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-additional-headers offending repetition 14:50:59 Francois: Again - repetition for emphasis. 14:51:17 Francois: It looks weird in the conformance statement. 14:51:22 So you just want to eliminate the second bullet point in 6.1.1, right? 14:51:34 Jo: The only reason it's not 2 bullets is because of the additional info on removing comments. 14:51:41 So you just want to eliminate the second bullet point in 4.1.6, right? 14:52:06 Jo: Don't want to eliminate the 2nd bullet.... 14:52:39 Jo: how about rewording the first part of 4.1.6.1 to get around this inelegance. 14:53:21 jeffs has joined #bpwg 14:53:30 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies" 14:53:54 +1 14:54:10 +i dunno 14:54:11 SeanP has joined #bpwg 14:54:13 +1 14:54:44 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies" 14:54:46 Can we place the "in accordance with RFC2616" in 4.1.6, then? 14:54:57 as above, EdC 14:55:00 +SeanP 14:55:06 +1 14:55:22 +1 14:55:31 +1 14:55:31 +1 14:55:36 RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies" 14:55:38 +1 14:55:55 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-altering-header-values splitted guideline between 4.1.5 and 4.1.5.5 14:57:06 Francois: if you read the first normative statement it must be possible for the server to construct the original user agent - so from an implementation perspective and a testing perspective you cannot test one independently of the other. 14:57:30 Francois: We should try not to use the passive form and probably put these 2 guidelines together. It's the same guideline using different wording. 14:58:04 I agree with avoidance of passive form. Still thinking about the other aspects... 15:00:21 PROPSOED RESOLUTION: Under 4.1.5 Remove last sentence of first para, insert "(see 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields)" in first sentence after "header fields" and insert " so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header field values" at the end of the first sentence of 4.1.5.5 15:00:59 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Under 4.1.5 Remove last sentence of first para, insert "(see 4.1.5.5 Original Header Fields)" in first sentence after "header fields" of Ibid and insert " so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header field values" at the end of the first sentence of 4.1.5.5 15:01:11 +1 15:01:26 +1 15:01:34 +1 15:01:39 +1 15:01:51 +1 15:02:08 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0025.html Francois worries about Web site 15:02:11 RESOLUTION: In 4.1.6 add appropriately "(in accordance with RFC 2616)" and in 4.1.6.1 replace "Proxies must (in accordance with RFC 2616) include a Via HTTP header field indicating their presence and" with "Proxies" 15:02:46 A Web Site by any other name would be ... 15:02:47 Francois: I don't want to start a discussion on what a website is. I just wonder if we can define it for these purposes as a subset of the same origin. 15:03:10 Jo: I don't think it is necessarily though is it? 15:03:26 Jo: Something like www.example.com may have images at images.example.com, right? 15:03:41 (or scripts at script.example.com) 15:03:55 audio dropped out for me... 15:04:43 I'm back. 15:05:02 Jo: hrm... 15:05:33 Francois: if it's common that images get served from another domain then forget about it... 15:05:37 It is common. 15:05:54 Are such fine distinctions materially necessary to interpret the guidelines? 15:06:12 Francois: it's not going to be easy to write tests if you cannot scope what a web site is. 15:07:08 Dan: it has to do with scalability issues - why you sometimes server up images off of different servers 15:07:42 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In re the matter of testing and Web sites, include a note in the tests that where reference from a made from a Web site to another domain this is not conclusive of anything 15:08:01 (of course, this can more intelligently be done with Apache re-write rules or intelligent http redirection head-ends these days) 15:08:12 [hope that is vague enough for everyone] 15:08:25 Here's an example: Images on yahoo.com come from l.yimg.com and d.yimg.com 15:08:46 that was what I was thinking of SeanP 15:09:04 Francois: I'd prefer that we not touch the existing text? 15:09:05 I am puzzled. Isn't there some form of useful, formal, and robust definition in a W3C glossary of some sort? 15:09:11 Jo: Francois what can we do? 15:09:18 Francois: Nothing - just forget about my comment. 15:09:38 I suggest a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. 15:10:47 You could say "anything that is an included resource for a web page constitutes the same website" 15:11:01 s/You/Jo: You/ 15:11:21 Francois: The point is not so much about included resources but about links. 15:12:31 Francois: Honestly I don't think we could be more precise here. We could say for links it's the same origin but for included resources it's not necessary. 15:13:46 Dan: So no action required? 15:13:52 Francois: yes. 15:14:02 Upshot is that Francois will take a pragmatic stance on this, ref included resource and "same domain" for linked resources 15:14:31 q+ 15:14:37 ack f 15:15:18 Francois: Might be a bit early now but: I kicked off the work on the CT test suite. I have not included: I won't be able to take the lead on that work. Someone needs to step up and take on the leadership. 15:15:35 [collective heavy sigh] 15:15:40 Jo: Any volunteers? 15:15:42 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Dan to take the lead on Tests, OK? 15:15:47 +1 15:15:54 -1,000,000 15:17:13 Jo: let's take it off line. 15:17:47 Francois: let's think about it - the work won't just magically be done. 15:17:57 Jo: [call closed] 15:18:13 hang loose, all 15:18:14 Jo: Let's try to move that fwd to final lc next call. 15:18:17 zakim, drop me 15:18:17 jo is being disconnected 15:18:18 -adam 15:18:18 -Alan_Chuter 15:18:18 -jo 15:18:20 -francois 15:18:20 -brucel 15:18:23 bye 15:18:24 brucel has left #bpwg 15:18:28 -DKA 15:18:34 -SeanP 15:18:37 -EdC 15:19:01 yeliz has left #bpwg 15:19:52 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:19:52 On the phone I see yeliz 15:20:02 zakim, drop yeliz 15:20:02 yeliz is being disconnected 15:20:03 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended 15:20:04 Attendees were jo, francois, adam, EdC, DKA, Alan_Chuter, brucel, yeliz, SeanP 15:20:15 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:20:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-bpwg-minutes.html francois