- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:20:30 +0200
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Sorry this is coming so late.
This is an updated (and lengthy!) agenda for today's call.
Same topics as before, reordered in a more logical way and completed
with likely outcomes (lines starting with "->").
Most of the points to address should not trigger much discussion, but I
don't quite expect we'll be able to close ALL the ISSUES and ACTIONS
today. We should be close to completion anyway to address resulting
items during F2F next week.
-----
Chair: François
Staff Contact: François
Known regrets: (Pontus)
Date: 2008-06-10T1400Z for 60mn
Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.
Latest draft:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606
Topics
1. Draft is out
2. Quick pass on ACTIONS
3. Quick pass on Jo's points
4. Quick pass on ISSUES
5. Sean's points
6. Remaining ISSUES
7. What's next?
1. Draft is out
---------------
Comments?
2. Quick pass on ACTIONS
------------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
ACTION-614?
on: Jo
re: raise discussion on ISSUE-222
status: done
-> close ACTION-614
ACTION-632?
on: Bryan
re: user-agent detection
status: not needed anymore
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#request-no-transform
-> close ACTION-632
ACTION-673?
on: Aaron
re: scoping bogus 200 responses
status: need resolution
-> ACTION: daoust to ping Aaron on scoping bogus 200 responses
ACTION-678?
on: Sean
re: distinction between CT-proxy and client/proxy
status: done
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0019.html
-> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: unless the proxy is a non-transparent HTTP
proxy, a proprietary client/proxy content adaptation solution is a black
box that behaves like a regular User Agent as far as content providers
are concerned. As such, it is out of scope of our guidelines that only
address CT proxies.
-> Need to mention that as a note?
-> close ACTION-678
ACTION-680?
on: Rob
re: form transformation for CT document
status: not needed anymore
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-decision-to-transform
-> close ACTION-680
ACTION-703?
on: Jo
re: communication with TAG re. ISSUE-222
status: not done
-> we need to address ISSUE-222
ACTION-706?
on: Jo
re: reword 2.5.1 (now 3.2.1)
status: done
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-user-control
-> close ACTION-706
ACTION-709?
on: fd
re: examples for 2.5.3 (now 3.2.3)
status, done,
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-other-control
-> close ACTION-709
ACTION-710?
on: fd
re: effect of HEAD requests
status: report not done but conclusion is that HEAD equals GET as far as
treatment on servers is concerned
-> ACTION-710 still pending
ACTION-711?
on: Soonho
re: feedback on CT doc
status: not done
-> ACTION: daoust to ping Soonho on providing feedback
ACTION-723?
on: fd
re: session vs. persistent settings for 2.5.1 and 2.5.3 (now 3.2.1 and
3.2.3)
status: done, but "semi-persistent" still appears
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-user-control
-> ACTION: jo to remove "semi-persistent" in 3.2.3
-> close ACTION-723
ACTION-724?
on: Jo
re: discussion on priority of server vs. user preferences
status: not done
ACTION-732?
on: Jo
re: HTTPS links
status: not done
ACTION-735?
on: fd
re: linearization/zoom capabilities
status: done, now as examples
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-decision-to-transform
-> close ACTION-735
ACTION-738?
on: Jo
re: text about transforming proxies generating valid documents
status: done
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-Proxy-Response
-> close ACTION-738
ACTION-740?
on: Jo
re: text crafting on stripping comments in Via headers
status: done
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-proxy-presence-indication
-> close ACTION-740
ACTION-749?
on: fd
re: XHR Last Call comment, done
status: done
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008May/0177.html
-> close ACTION-749
ACTION-752?
on: Jo
re: text for the final part of 4.1.2
status: done but "still in doubt" not precised
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-decision-to-transform
-> "still in doubt"?
-> close ACTION-752
ACTION-765?
on: fd
re: equivalence between HTTP header and a META element
status: done (by Jo)
see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606#sec-ServerResponse
-> close ACTION-765
ACTION-766?
on: Jo
re: note describing the circumstances of choosing the X-Device prefix.
status: not done
3. Quick pass on Jo's points
----------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0015.html
Point A?
re: client/proxy solutions
see: ACTION-678 on Sean
-> addressed
Point B?
re: link to definition of "normative"
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0016.html
-> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Use link to either QA glossary
(http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary#N or Patent Policy document
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential-requirements)
Point C?
re: persistent vs. semi-persistent
see: ACTION-723 on fd
-> addressed
Point D?
re: rejected response with a 200 status
see: ACTION-673 on Aaron
-> pending
Point E?
re: CT namespace URI
-> pending response from Webmaster. fd is on it
Point F?
re: on the Link element
-> need to resolve re. 4.2 and "the medium for which the presentation is
intended SHOULD be indicated"
Point G?
re: clarification of the 4.3 part
-> is clarification of "MUST be prepared" needed?
Point H?
re: detection of link to self (also depends on Point F)
-> need to explain how detection should be made?
Point I?
re: clarification of section 4.1.2, and ISSUE-255
-> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: section 4.1.2 is about "Proxy Forwarding of
Request" and is to be renamed as such.
-> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re. ISSUE-255, drop mention of examination of
URI from 4.1.2 as it's a heuristic to scope rejected 200 responses,
detailed in 4.4, and 4.1.2 already precises to examine the response
(with a link to 4.4)
-> Raise an ISSUE on 4.1.2
Point J?
re: need to review all ISSUES and ACTIONS
-> that's what we're trying to do...
4. Quick pass on ISSUES
-----------------------
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
ISSUE-227?
re: usefulness of the CT guidelines doc without extensions to HTTP
-> Well, here's the final result. Shorter, though still useful, hopefully.
-> Close ISSUE-227
ISSUE-238?
re: use of powder to "label" CT proxies
-> we don't want to depend on POWDER, so we only mention it in "Scope
for Future Work"
-> add a sentence to say that it could also be used "by a CT proxy to
advertise its capabilities and intentions"?
-> Close ISSUE-238
ISSUE-241?
re: tokenization of URIs
-> Close ISSUE-241
ISSUE-242?
re: persistent vs. session preference
see: ACTION-723 on fd
-> Close ISSUE-242
ISSUE-243?
re: use of HTTP OPTIONS method
-> Study if that's possible and complete "Amendments to HTTP" in "Scope
for Future Work"?
ISSUE-244?
re: Inference from earlier interaction with a Server
-> We mention "the server has previously shown that it is contextually
aware" without explanation
-> Suggest to leave it up to CT-vendors
-> Close ISSUE-244
ISSUE-255?
re: subdomain and Path as a heuristic in content transformation
see: Point I above.
-> Close ISSUE-255
5. Sean's points
----------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0018.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0009.html
re: editorial fixes
-> ACTION: Jo to use "non-transparent" whereever "non transparent" is
being used
-> ACTION: Jo to append a carriage-return after the square brackets of
the definition of "non-transparent proxy" in 2.1
re: user preferences
see: ACTION-724 on Jo re. priority of server vs. user preferences.
-> Clarification of 3.2.4 seems in order.
-> Reminding reader of this in the rest of the document might create
confusion instead of clarity though.
6. Remaining ISSUES
-------------------
ISSSUE-187?
re: Link/Rel to MOK versions of non-MOK resources
-> ? (I wasn't there at the time, not sure where the discussion really
ended)
ISSUE-222?
re: TAG Finding on alternative representations
-> suggest we address it during F2F
ISSUE-223?
re: Jo's CT shopping list
status: we stopped at "6. Testing" (included) during last F2F
-> suggest we go through the end during coming F2F
7. What's next?
---------------
- presentation to the main body of the Working Group
- on our way to Last Call
Francois Daoust wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You probably already noticed: the new draft is out!
> Many thanks, Jo!
>
> We have loads of things to review and close.
> Thank you in advance for:
> 1. reviewing carefully the new draft.
> 2. sending comments before tomorrow's call
> 3. joining tomorrow's call on time
>
> The agenda basically is: "let's review and agree on everything", for
> which, I'm afraid, one hour is likely to be pretty short.
> I'll try to send an updated and more precise agenda a bit later on.
>
>
> -----
> Chair: François
> Staff Contact: François
> Known regrets: (Pontus)
>
> Date: 2008-06-10T1400Z for 60mn
> Phone: +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99, +44.117.370.6152
> Conference code: 2283 ("BCTF") followed by # key
> IRC channel: #bpwg on irc.w3.org, port 6665.
>
> Latest draft:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080606
>
>
> 1. Draft is out. Comments?
> -> note the CT namespace final URI is still pending.
>
> 2. Review Jo's points:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0015.html
>
> 3. Address Sean's concern re. User preferences:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Jun/0009.html
>
> 4. Review and close open actions:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
>
> 5. Review open issues:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/12
>
> 6. Ready for Last Call?
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 10:21:05 UTC