[minutes] BPWG 2010-03-30

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[minutes] BPWG 2010-03-30

Francois Daoust
Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text at the end of this email.


Mobile Web Application Best Practices
-----
We're looking for more implementation feedback to complete the current
implementation report:


Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
-----
- no outstanding issue left. I am to ping the previous reviewers.
- two editorial comments to be addressed
- Dan mentions 203 response status code and evokes works on OPES. To be
investigated.
- current plan is to resolve to advance the specification to Candidate
Recommendation next week, knowing that the spec is likely to stay at
that stage in the absence of a test suite.


Thanks,
Francois.


-----
30 Mar 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Mar/0009.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           tomhume, francois, miguel, adam, EdC, DKA, Kai_Dietrich, jo,
           jeffs

    Regrets
           SeanP, Yeliz

    Chair
           Jo

    Scribe
           Kai

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Mobile Web Application Best Practices
          2. [6]Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Mobile Web Application Best Practices

    adam: there have been some responses.

    <francois> [8]Implementation report so far

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report

    adam: we need more implementation reports from people. Most have
    been from Google.
    ... we need two for each BP

    tomhume: we'll do one

    DKA: already sent ours in

    Jo: another one? How about it?
    ... any others?
    ... Francois, outreach to others?

    francois: not sure who to ask.
    ... there are many web apps that could be used

    adam: there was some called [?] who was going to do something

    <EdC> What about operators like ATT and Vodafone? Could they simply
    ask the contributors to on-deck applications to fill in the
    questionnaire?

    jo: what about EdC suggestion?

    DKA: is a good idea. I'll follow up.

    francois: what about betavine?

    <jo> ACTION: Appelquist to see if on-deck apps and betavine could be
    a source of implementation reports [recorded in
    [9]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1043 - See if on-deck apps and betavine
    could be a source of implementation reports [on Daniel Appelquist -
    due 2010-04-06].

Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies

    francois: we are done with last call
    ... there have been no non-editorial comments

    <francois> [10]Comments on Last Call

      [10]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20100211/

    francois: Last reviewers have not replied to our own reply but then
    we would be done with LC period
    ... we have no one working on the test suite now
    ... so we will probably not have a test suite for this spec before
    the end of the charter
    ... the best option would be to publish as CR and leave it at that
    for the moment.

    Jo: then we should do that
    ... SeanP was going to work on the test suite

    DKA: we could recharter just to do the test suite

    jo: we should get CR as soon as possible
    ... let's see what Sean says

    DKA: i think our best chance is Nokia

    jo: let's see what Sean says

    EdC: there is a small probability that publishing a formal CR might
    push other organizations to contribute (even partially) to a test
    suite.
    ... it might entice them

    jo: it seems like the next step anyways
    ... Francois, please contact previous commenters

    <francois> ACTION: francois to ping previous reviewers on third last
    call of CT [recorded in
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1044 - Ping previous reviewers on third
    last call of CT [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2010-04-06].

    <EdC> Yes, let us move forward.

    jo: next call we could ask for transition

    [all agree verbally]

    <jo> ACTION: JO to enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1045 - Enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [on Jo
    Rabin - due 2010-04-06].

    Jo: anything else on CT?
    ... AOB?

    DKA: should mention informal feedback of the TAG on CT
    ... we got into a confusion around sniffing....there has been a lot
    of talk about this in TAG
    ... because it has also been coming up in IETF
    ... CT was discussed it became clear that CT and sniffing are
    related

    (scribe can't hear)

    scribe: discussion came up why 203 code wasn't used.
    ... we didn't take it further
    ... I believe we didn't have discussion on this
    ... I was asked why we didn't ref work out of IETF
    ... Larry M. pointed out that this work has been going on in IETF
    since our work began
    ... work related to CT

    <francois> [13]RFC3238

      [13] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3238

    scribe: what was our view on OPES?
    ... was it tangential?

    Jo: no, but it wasn't actionable.

    <EdC> This is the intent of RFC3238: "This memo provides information
    for the Internet community. It does

    <EdC> not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
    this

    <EdC> memo is unlimited."

    DKA: we need to get clarification from TAG or do research about
    latest results on OPES.

    jo: why don't you talk to Larry to get that info?

    <jo> ACTION: Dan to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF
    work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    (typing is very loud)

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1046 - Ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and
    Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [on Daniel
    Appelquist - due 2010-04-06].

    Jo: please proceed with previous plan and request transition to CR
    ... on 203.... it is not referred to under transform section. Can
    somebody offer justification for the point of view?
    ... we might get some question about this not being in the RFC
    ... anybody want to investigate the 203 status?

    <DKA> +1 to considering it discussed

    Jo: anybody?
    ... it's been discussed

    DKA: for a resolution somebody needs to take an action to do proper
    research on how 203 has been used

    francois: i can take an action to have an informal discussion with
    Yves who might have something to say on this, given his involvement
    in the HTTP Bis work

    <jo> ACTION: francois to discuss status code 203 [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1047 - Discuss status code 203 [on
    Fran├žois Daoust - due 2010-04-06].

    DKA: that would be good

    jo: if we could bring these actions in by next week, then would
    could ask for transition to CR
    ... any more?
    ... closing the call

    <tomhume> bye

    DKA: regrets for next two weeks

    <DKA> I will work towards get the result of my action sent in on
    email.

    <DKA> ciao

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Appelquist to see if on-deck apps and betavine could
    be a source of implementation reports [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dan to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on
    IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to discuss status code 203 [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: francois to ping previous reviewers on third last call
    of CT [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: JO to enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    [End of minutes]