14:55:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:55:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc
14:55:56 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:55:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:55:58 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:55:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG(BCTF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:55:59 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:55:59 <trackbot-ng> Date: 26 February 2008
14:56:32 <francois> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Feb/0058.html
14:56:42 <francois> Chair: francois
14:57:13 <francois> Regrets: rob
14:57:25 <francois> zakim, code?
14:57:25 <Zakim> the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), francois
14:57:50 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG(BCTF)10:00AM has now started
14:57:57 <Zakim> +francois
14:58:20 <Zakim> + +1.519.880.aaaa
14:58:43 <francois> zakim, aaaa is kemp
14:58:44 <Zakim> +kemp; got it
15:00:44 <Magnus> Magnus has joined #bpwg
15:00:57 <abel> abel has joined #bpwg
15:01:04 <Magnus> zakim, code?
15:01:04 <Zakim> the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Magnus
15:01:04 <abel> abel has left #bpwg
15:01:24 <Zakim> +Magnus
15:01:34 <jo> jo has joined #bpwg
15:01:48 <hgerlach> hgerlach has joined #bpwg
15:03:51 <Zakim> +hgerlach
15:04:58 <hgerlach> Minutes are not working http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=%5Bminutes%5D&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-bpwg-ct
15:05:43 <francois> http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-bpwg-minutes.html
15:05:56 <jo> zakim, code?
15:05:56 <Zakim> the conference code is 2283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
15:06:36 <Zakim> +jo
15:07:39 <francois> ScribeNick: Magnus
15:07:46 <francois> Topic: New draft available
15:08:03 <francois> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080226 Content Transformation Guidelines 1e
15:08:03 <francois> close ACTION-661
15:08:04 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-661 Redraft CT Guidleines based on conversation on this call closed
15:08:43 <Magnus> francois: proposal is to go through this draft and take resolutions as to what in practice our guidelines say from a tech point of view
15:08:53 <Magnus> ... all the arguments have been discussed on the email list
15:08:59 <francois> Topic: Switch to summer time for next calls
15:09:02 <Magnus> ... it's time to take decisions
15:09:24 <Magnus> ... switch to DST doesn't match between Europe and US
15:09:40 <Magnus> ... proposal is to stick to UTC European time
15:10:09 <jo> +1
15:10:11 <Magnus> ... this will be for 3 weeks
15:10:17 <Magnus> +1
15:10:30 <Magnus> ... hereby agreed
15:10:47 <jo> RESOLUTION: Stick to Euro time when US moves clocks forward in March
15:10:54 <Magnus> Topic: New Draft of guidelines
15:11:20 <jo> q+
15:11:20 <Magnus> francois: let's start with the objectives part section 2.4
15:11:53 <Magnus> ... does everybody agree that we should not mention active/passive states since it's confusing?
15:11:57 <jo> +1
15:12:00 <Magnus> +1
15:12:01 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove 2.4 Proxy States part
15:12:18 <francois> RESOLUTION: remove 2.4 Proxy States part
15:12:19 <jo> q?
15:12:25 <francois> ack jo
15:12:36 <Magnus> Jo: Just want to mention in section 2.4
15:12:45 <Magnus> ... the requirements expressed there are not accurate any more
15:13:00 <Magnus> ... desired media types is not a requirement for what the UA tells the proxy
15:13:14 <Magnus> francois: are you talking about 2.1?
15:13:24 <Magnus> ... agree that they are not up to date
15:13:25 <jo> s/2.4/2.1
15:13:36 <Magnus> ... they are beyond the scope of the doc. Let's leave it for now.
15:13:40 <Magnus> jo: fine.
15:14:00 <Magnus> francois: next thing will be about 2.6 control of the behavior of the proxy
15:14:08 <Magnus> ... there is an editorial note here
15:14:12 <SeanP> SeanP has joined #bpwg
15:14:27 <Magnus> ... are we talkign of a list of mandatory options?
15:14:40 <Magnus> ... that the ct proxy should allow user to change?
15:14:44 <Magnus> jo: it needs revising
15:14:53 <francois> zakim, mute magnus
15:14:53 <Zakim> Magnus should now be muted
15:15:08 <Magnus> ... are we saying that a ct proxy must offer control to the user
15:15:30 <Magnus> francois: it's about listing the option. Should we specify a list of mandatory options?
15:15:32 <Zakim> +SeanP
15:15:41 <kemp> q+
15:15:46 <francois> ack kemp
15:15:46 <Magnus> ... Do others have opinions?
15:15:58 <Magnus> Aron: some recommendation would be good
15:16:08 <Magnus> ... for us we will probably have user controls
15:16:18 <Magnus> ... it's dangerous territory to make it mandatory
15:16:22 <Magnus> ... but it's a good idea
15:16:30 <Magnus> francois: you would like a list of suggestions?
15:16:39 <jo> q+
15:16:40 <Magnus> Aron: yes. should is ok - must is inappropriate
15:16:46 <Zakim> +AndrewS
15:16:50 <francois> ack jo
15:16:50 <kemp> s/Aron/Aaron/
15:16:58 <Magnus> Jo: I'm happy with that
15:17:09 <Magnus> ... could Aaron draft that for us?
15:17:13 <Magnus> Aaron: ok
15:17:25 <Magnus> Jo: we want this done before Seoul
15:18:02 <Magnus> Francois: I suppose you have the points in the previous draft?
15:18:13 <Magnus> ... I have listed them in one of my threads
15:18:15 <andrews> andrews has joined #bpwg
15:18:16 <jo> ACTION: Kemp to draft section 2.6 listing user control options that SHOULD be supported
15:18:16 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-666 - Draft section 2.6 listing user control options that SHOULD be supported [on Aaron Kemp - due 2008-03-04].
15:18:17 <Magnus> Aaron: I'll take a look
15:19:22 <kemp> q+
15:19:22 <Magnus> Francois: Maybe prefs are listed somewhere else
15:19:34 <Magnus> ... is this within scope?
15:19:42 <francois> ack kemp
15:19:46 <Magnus> Aaron: Just wondering if this should be merged into 2.6
15:19:48 <jo> q+ 
15:19:53 <Magnus> ... why is this different?
15:20:00 <Magnus> Francois: agreed
15:20:05 <francois> ack jo
15:20:08 <Magnus> Jo: I noticed that as well
15:20:18 <Magnus> ... 2.7 and 2.8 should both be subsections of 2.6
15:20:31 <jo> ACTION: Jo to make 2.7 and 2.8 sub sections of 2.6
15:20:31 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-667 - Make 2.7 and 2.8 sub sections of 2.6 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-04].
15:20:48 <Magnus> ... I am increasingly thinking that since POWDER is coming out soon
15:20:57 <Magnus> ... we should encourage ppl to llok for mobileOK labels
15:21:17 <kemp> s/llok/look/
15:21:19 <Magnus> ... something that various portions of the site - transform this, don't transfor that
15:22:11 <kemp> q+
15:22:21 <kemp> q-
15:22:30 <Magnus> i just got lost in that very very long sentence
15:22:55 <Magnus> Francois: don't know when POWDER will be out
15:23:00 <jo> ACTION: JO to raise an ISSUE on labelling using POWDER describing transformation options on sites
15:23:00 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-668 - Raise an ISSUE on labelling using POWDER describing transformation options on sites [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-04].
15:23:24 <Magnus> ... POWDER will be able to replace robots.txt
15:23:29 <Magnus> jo: Exactly
15:23:52 <Magnus> ... there is an issue that POWDER is not allowed to have a well known location to retrieve it
15:23:56 <Magnus> .. but we can get around that
15:24:01 <Magnus> s/../.../
15:24:09 <SeanP> The POWDER idea is interesting.  I'll need to read up on POWDER...
15:24:20 <Magnus> Heiko: that's why I suggested response header
15:24:34 <Magnus> francois: let's move on
15:24:49 <Magnus> ... part 3.1
15:24:49 <francois> Topic: Client origination of request (§3.1)
15:24:55 <Magnus> ... client origination of requests
15:25:09 <Magnus> ... the list of options can go there?
15:25:24 <Magnus> ... do we have anything to add to this part? It's rather small now
15:25:56 <Magnus> Jo: we don't want to talk about the client
15:26:23 <Magnus> Francois: move on to 3.2
15:26:25 <francois> Topic: Proxy Receipt, Forwarding or Response to a Request (§3.2)
15:26:35 <Magnus> ... so this is a bigger part
15:26:43 <jo> ACTION: Jo to remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.3
15:26:43 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-669 - Remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.3 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-04].
15:26:52 <Magnus> ... I suggest we leave the detection of the cases when the UA is not a browser an open issue
15:26:53 <jo> s/3.3/3.2
15:27:10 <Magnus> ... I have a small question about the 2nd paragraph
15:27:11 <jo> ACTION: Jo to remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.2
15:27:11 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-670 - Remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.2 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-04].
15:27:16 <Magnus> .. what is the point of the paragraph?
15:27:20 <jo> close ACTION-669
15:27:20 <trackbot-ng> ACTION-669 Remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.3 closed
15:27:32 <Magnus> s/../.../
15:28:25 <Magnus> Jo: I think the point is that it should not respond with a cached transformed copy
15:28:34 <Magnus> ... that is not brilliantly clear
15:28:58 <jo> ACTION: Jo to update wording of sect 3.2 p 2 to clarify that the intent is not to respond with a transformed copy
15:28:58 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-671 - Update wording of sect 3.2 p 2 to clarify that the intent is not to respond with a transformed copy [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-04].
15:29:11 <Magnus> Francois: we are getting to the core part of our discussion
15:29:24 <Magnus> ... should the CT proxy advertise that it is there and its capabilities
15:29:35 <Magnus> ... and thirdly how - in which format
15:29:48 <Magnus> ... in my agenda I have listed possibilities
15:30:06 <Magnus> ... I removed all possibilities that are not based on existing technologies in practice
15:30:17 <Magnus> ... there are only via or pragma header left
15:30:33 <Magnus> ... or third ct proxy should not advertise
15:30:47 <Magnus> ... my proposal is to use the VIA header to advertise that the CT proxy is on the line
15:30:57 <Magnus> ... it's already in the draft
15:31:29 <Magnus> ... my second proposal is that we use the common section of the VIA header with the caveat that anybody else may strip them away
15:31:40 <francois> Q?
15:31:43 <kemp> q+
15:31:44 <jo> s/common/comment/
15:31:53 <francois> ack kemp
15:32:03 <Magnus> Aaron: do we wan t to how we are going to talk about capabilities?
15:32:27 <Magnus> Francois: 1 musd question
15:32:32 <SeanP> I'm OK with using the Via header.
15:32:36 <Magnus> ... it has to be an extensible format
15:32:51 <Magnus> ... all content providers must be able to parse the string automatically
15:32:54 <kemp> q+
15:32:58 <francois> ack kemp
15:33:00 <Magnus> ... otherwise it's only for humans and useless
15:33:19 <Magnus> Aaron: is there enough that CTs, so I propose a URI poiting to a description
15:33:24 <jo> q+ to speak in favor of Aaron's proposal
15:33:40 <kemp> q+
15:33:45 <jo> q+ to add that this could be a pointer to a POWDER
15:33:50 <Magnus> Francois: what are the things taht a CT proxy can do that can't be rephrased into simple verbs (reformat, restructure, etc)
15:34:17 <Magnus> Aaron: basically my point is that it can be too generic and not useful
15:34:20 <francois> ack kemp
15:34:22 <francois> ack jo
15:34:22 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to speak in favor of Aaron's proposal and to add that this could be a pointer to a POWDER
15:34:50 <Magnus> Jo: I'm not Phil Archer's rep in this respect, but it makes sense to use POWDER
15:35:02 <Magnus> ... it would at least be consistent
15:35:13 <Magnus> ... with other things we are trying to do in this group
15:35:23 <Magnus> ... a URI in the comments fields is not inventing new technology
15:35:31 <Magnus> ... it's obvious what it means
15:35:45 <Magnus> ... this would be a great help to content providers with a rich enough vocabulary
15:35:56 <Magnus> ... if this is the textual description it would be useful enough
15:36:03 <Magnus> ... if it's parsable that would be more useful
15:36:14 <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: use a URI in the HTTP VIA header comments field to advertise the CT-proxy's capabilities
15:36:14 <Magnus> Francois: it looks like a good idea
15:36:40 <Magnus> ... this URI should link to a POWDEr descriptive doc
15:36:41 <kemp> +1
15:36:46 <Magnus> +1
15:36:47 <SeanP> +1
15:36:53 <andrews> +1
15:37:01 <francois> RESOLUTION: use a URI in the HTTP VIA header comments field to advertise the CT-proxy's capabilities
15:37:03 <jo> +1
15:37:22 <andrews> +1
15:37:28 <Magnus> Francois: let's move on
15:37:46 <Magnus> ... no other open questions here
15:38:05 <kemp> q+
15:38:09 <Magnus> Jo: the point is did we decide what to do about POST?
15:38:15 <Magnus> Francois: no real problem?
15:38:18 <francois> ack kemp
15:38:31 <Magnus> Aaron: I must have missed this call. We must be able to do POST. I am unaware of the problem.
15:38:40 <Magnus> ... POST is important
15:38:45 <hgerlach> +q
15:38:50 <Magnus> Francois: that was the conclusion we had on the previous call
15:39:02 <francois> ack hgerlach
15:39:16 <Magnus> Heiko: the question is do we need an option where a user can opt in to break SSL?
15:39:38 <Magnus> Francois: it's listed further in the sense that there's nothing the CT proxy should do
15:40:06 <Magnus> ... anyway, I saw it somewhere
15:40:38 <Magnus> ... it doesn't affect our discussions and no decisions so far regarding HTTPS rewriting
15:40:49 <Magnus> Jo: question: are we assuming that it will not restructure?
15:41:00 <Magnus> ... a POST will not restructure?
15:41:18 <hgerlach> +q
15:41:18 <Magnus> ... what about PUT?
15:41:30 <francois> ack hgerlach
15:41:34 <Magnus> Heiko: I think the request will never be modified - only the response
15:41:39 <kemp> q+
15:41:42 <Magnus> Jo: no, the headers are modified
15:41:48 <Magnus> Heiko: but never the request body
15:42:16 <Magnus> Francois: Jo, are you thinking of encoding of a document sent via PUT or POST?
15:42:21 <Magnus> Jop: we just need to be clear
15:42:29 <Magnus> ... about the nature of intervention
15:42:42 <Magnus> ... there are any number of HTTP POST, HEAD, PUT that you can do in theory
15:42:55 <Magnus> .. we shoudl be clear about the ones that are in scope
15:43:06 <Magnus> ... clarify what we are talking about
15:43:15 <dom> s/Jop/Jo/
15:43:50 <francois> q?
15:43:51 <francois> ack kemp
15:43:55 <Magnus> Aaron: there are cases where we modify the request body in a POST - encoding issues
15:44:10 <Magnus> ... suppose the mobile doesn't support an encoding that the server requires
15:44:14 <Magnus> ... we do this in some cases
15:44:24 <Magnus> Heiko: this has never been in scope in the past at Vodafone
15:44:38 <Magnus> Aaron: I don't want to be forbidden by the document
15:45:04 <Magnus> Francois: as for the other commands, HTTP PUT etc, I', not so familiar with them
15:45:13 <Magnus> ... I only see it used at W3C
15:45:15 <jo> [Jo to adjust text in 3.2 under "intervene in HTTPS" and remove the reference to HTTPS and add GET POST HEAD and PUT as the methods in scope, and put in a placeholder as to which parts of the request and response can be modified]
15:45:33 <Magnus> ... I don't know if there is a problem with them or not
15:45:51 <Magnus> Jo: I just posted a possible action
15:46:02 <Magnus> ... let me give myself an action to adjust the text
15:46:15 <Magnus> Francois: sounds great
15:46:21 <jo> ACTION: Jo to adjust text in 3,2 per the previous note in the minutes
15:46:21 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-672 - Adjust text in 3,2 per the previous note in the minutes [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-04].
15:46:47 <hgerlach> From: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html: The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the supplied Request-URI., so I think this should not be affected by CT
15:46:51 <Magnus> Francois: the whole point now is how should the proxy behave?
15:47:01 <hgerlach> +q
15:47:04 <Magnus> ... is there any need to change UA header, what should we say?
15:47:07 <kemp> q+
15:47:25 <francois> ack hgerlach
15:47:34 <Magnus> Heiko: I think we in general should not change UA header, but there are exceptions
15:47:54 <Magnus> ... if you need to bypass server-side restrictions on UA
15:48:13 <Magnus> ... we need a list of pages that do not work with device UA
15:48:41 <Magnus> Francois: you don't change UA header by default, but add accept header
15:48:47 <Magnus> Heicko: that's how it should work
15:48:54 <Magnus> ... we have had this issue at Vf UK
15:49:12 <Magnus> ... we always sent a fake UA header instead of the original UA
15:49:20 <Magnus> ... we must be sure that mobile sites will work
15:49:42 <Magnus> ... so content transformation must only be performed for non-mobile sites
15:49:57 <francois> q?
15:50:01 <francois> ack kemp
15:50:13 <Magnus> Aaron: ideally I agree to not changing UA header
15:50:21 <andrews> +q
15:50:27 <Magnus> ... but I disagree with the notion that most sites are mobile aware
15:50:47 <Magnus> ... I don't support leaving original UA header as the default
15:51:02 <Magnus> ... in the future don't masquerade, but we can't di that now
15:51:08 <Magnus> s/di/do/
15:51:17 <francois> ack andrews
15:51:28 <Magnus> Andrew: I agree with Heiko's approach
15:51:39 <jo> q+ to think that the default should be that the original user agent is not modified unless a 406 response is received or unless a 200 with a heuristically determined equivalent 406
15:51:43 <Magnus> ... the way we do CT today is discouraging mobile best practices
15:51:55 <Magnus> ... we want to encourage this instead (good mobile web design)
15:52:05 <Magnus> ... we are missing clear stats
15:52:11 <kemp> q+
15:52:13 <Magnus> ... how many sites support mobiles
15:52:20 <francois> ack jo
15:52:20 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to think that the default should be that the original user agent is not modified unless a 406 response is received or unless a 200 with a heuristically determined
15:52:24 <Zakim> ... equivalent 406
15:52:39 <hgerlach> Our priority must be on mobile internet/mobile sites, since we are making money with this sites, not with the other ones.
15:52:41 <Magnus> Jo: dotmobi has done stuff in this area that I can't expand upon
15:52:59 <Magnus> ... we should be doing stuff that encourages people to build good mobile content
15:53:16 <Magnus> ... we must gibve them information to do that - like the original UA header
15:53:35 <Magnus> s/gibve/give/
15:53:48 <hgerlach> The 3rd is if it just answers with 200 OK and a written error message
15:53:57 <Magnus> ... I think we have to resolve that it is best practice
15:54:01 <Magnus> ... to preserve the UA header
15:54:07 <Magnus> ... and clean up the current mess
15:54:16 <Magnus> ... if we are telling them that POWDER is good practice
15:54:27 <Magnus> ... we are pushing the web in the right direction
15:54:32 <Magnus> ... instead of a cul-de-sac
15:54:37 <Magnus> Francois: I agree
15:54:58 <Magnus> ... I just don't want us to go in the right direction if noone else follows
15:54:59 <francois> q?
15:55:01 <francois> ack kemp
15:55:08 <Magnus> Aaron: I don't disagree, but it's not going to work
15:55:28 <Magnus> ... it's very hard to reliably handle a 200 response
15:55:54 <Magnus> Francois: stats are confidential
15:56:05 <Magnus> ... this would be very useful to know
15:56:19 <Magnus> Aaron: I will look into it
15:56:47 <Magnus> Jo: speaking as WG chair: you can share confidentially
15:56:55 <Magnus> Francois: it would be really useful
15:57:14 <Magnus> ... are we talking about 1% or 80% ?
15:57:15 <jo> ACTION: Kemp to see if he can get some figures that scope the problem of bogus 200 responses
15:57:15 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-673 - See if he can get some figures that scope the problem of bogus 200 responses [on Aaron Kemp - due 2008-03-04].
15:57:25 <SeanP> I basically agree with Aaron--there is also the case where the user actually wants a transformed version of the desktop site instead of the mobile version.
15:57:32 <Magnus> zakim, unmute me
15:57:32 <Zakim> Magnus should no longer be muted
15:58:09 <Zakim> -Magnus
16:00:55 <francois> ScribeNick: francois
16:01:04 <jo> ACTION: Jo to produce new draft based on the many actions he has taken during this call :-) before BP meeting on THursday
16:01:04 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-674 - Produce new draft based on the many actions he has taken during this call :-) before BP meeting on THursday [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-04].
16:01:42 <Zakim> -kemp
16:01:44 <Zakim> -hgerlach
16:01:49 <francois> Topic: Presentation to main body of the working group
16:01:50 <Zakim> -SeanP
16:01:56 <Zakim> -jo
16:02:04 <Zakim> -AndrewS
16:02:13 <francois> Jo: I'll be able to issue a new draft by next Thursday
16:02:16 <Zakim> -francois
16:02:18 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG(BCTF)10:00AM has ended
16:02:21 <jo> FD: Next week's call is cancelled because of Seoul, so the next call will be in 2 weeks time
16:02:24 <Zakim> Attendees were francois, +1.519.880.aaaa, kemp, Magnus, hgerlach, jo, SeanP, AndrewS
16:02:47 <francois> francois: OK, I'll prepare a list of open questions/points that could be worth considering in the working group
16:02:54 <francois> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-minutes.html francois
17:07:41 <francois> zakim, bye
17:07:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #bpwg
17:07:44 <francois> rrsagent, bye
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-actions.rdf :
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Kemp to draft section 2.6 listing user control options that SHOULD be supported [1]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-18-16
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to make 2.7 and 2.8 sub sections of 2.6 [2]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-20-31
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JO to raise an ISSUE on labelling using POWDER describing transformation options on sites [3]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-23-00
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.3 [4]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-26-43
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to remove sect 3.1 and transfer semantics to the present 3.2 [5]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-27-11
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to update wording of sect 3.2 p 2 to clarify that the intent is not to respond with a transformed copy [6]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-28-58
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to adjust text in 3,2 per the previous note in the minutes [7]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-46-21
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Kemp to see if he can get some figures that scope the problem of bogus 200 responses [8]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T15-57-15
17:07:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to produce new draft based on the many actions he has taken during this call :-) before BP meeting on THursday [9]
17:07:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-bpwg-irc#T16-01-04