See also: IRC log
Jo: 1st up; final F2F. We agreed
Francois will run a poll. Francois?
... and we'll ask if anyone can volunteer a venue
... if not there, where? If not then, when?
Jo: Web App BP:
<francois> latest MWABP draft
Adam: pubbed new draft yesterday.
Ta to Bruce for comments, ta also to Eduardo:
... Hope to vote for Last Call? Strong objections? Eduardo
raised a canvas/ SVG question.
<jo> Eduardo's comments
Eduardo: am not sure whether lack of DOM in canvas isn;t as important as functionality. Perhaps mention that SVG has more functionality; 2nd: note on performance, but DOM isn't only comparison point
Adam: did straw poll in Google. The main difference is DOM/ lack of. Don't feel I have enough info to give a recommendation
Adam: canvas is faster, SVG isn;t useful for making a reflection
Adam will add about accessibility
<francois> [There does not seem to be a real BP that we can recommend for real about Canvas vs. SVG in the end. Shouldn't we either remove the BP altogether or leave it as "use one or the other, these are cool technologies"? ]
<PhilA2> brucel: I don't know whether we can have a BP on wich SVG/Canvass you should use, but I'm not averse to it
<PhilA2> .. I think the matter of the DOM is important, not from performance, but if you're trying to give info then canvass doesn't conform to WAI stuff
<francois> [On top of this, note that Canvas is HTML5. This normally puts a dependence on HTML5. ]
<PhilA2> .. we can say "remember accessibility" or "remember that canvass isn't accessible"
<PhilA2> Adam: OK
ADam: think we should just say canvas is good for decorative stuff
<PhilA2> Jo: So change is that we should add a comment that canvass is only suitable for decorative images as it's not accessible
Bruce: ... or for supplementing info that is also on the page in an accessible form elsewhere
Adam: Eduardo, what specific changes do you want?
Eduardo: if we have DOM, accessibility, performance.. do we need to say SVG is inherently richer for vector graphics?
Adam: disagree: DOM/ canvas is more fundamental interface so you can do same in canvas as you can in SVG
Jo: we need to get this sorted before LC
<EdC> fine with me.
Adam: I'll add the thing on accessibility as I know what to say
<Zakim> francois, you wanted to mention the HTML5 dependence point
Francois: I know you love it when I mention that canvas depends on html5 - This does look as a dependence on HTML5, and in that case we can't move to rec without html5 also becoming a rec. (Or can we?)
Jo: we're not building in a dependence on html5
Francois: if group is confident that it's OK, I am fine with that.
adam should we say "consider options for dynamic graphics" instead?
Francois: maybe Jo's right; we're not building in a real dependence
Jo: let's out it this way ... erm ... is this suitably caveated with "where canvas is available..."?
Adam: yup
JO: next point, please
Adam: Eduardo requested we add sth about media types as we caveat against them but don't mention them elsewhere. Will make change Ed suggested
Jo: anything else?
bruce: WFM
Jo: we'll give everyone 1 week to read + inwardly digest. We'll have an editor's meeting about this doc as it's been a while
<PhilA2> I'm happy to come and lend a hand if that helps
Adam to organise, as editor
Action on Adam
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
Action Adam organise editor's meeting
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1010 - Organise editor's meeting [on Adam Connors - due 2009-09-29].
Phil: post 11 a.m., please
<francois> [Note that schedule is tight, and we should publish a last call ASAP]
Jo: BP 1.5, floor to Kai
<PhilA2> Latest version is at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090922a.htm
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note.
Kai: doc fairly stable. How long
will doc be open? when will we call it done?
... it has weird layout in firefox for me. Anyone else?
... I'll check it and clean it
Jo: anticipate need for typo proofing, but we've been round block. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note.
<EdC> +1
Jo: tarting up typos within next day?
Bruce: concur
... concur
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests [after Thursday] the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note
<francois> +1
<Kai> +1
<miguel> +1
<EdC> +1
<jo> +1
Jo: congrats, Kai
Kai: thank you all
<PhilA2> Thanks to Kai for sticking with this through thick and thin
RESOLUTION: Modulo any final strictly editorial adjustments MWBP WG requests [after Thursday] the publication of [BP 1.5] as a WG Note
PhilA: legged it. "Bye"
<jo> EdC's Comments on CT
<francois> CT Guidelines draft 1t
EdC: 1st thing: user preferences. What happens when proxy don't assume that user wants the server's proposed representation without modification?
<francois> User selection of Restructured Experience
<jo> ACTION: Jo to amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1011 - Amend 4.1.5.3 etc cf EdC's Comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0062.html [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
Jo: on 4.2.9, you want that to move to mandatory?
EdC: yup. Jo: let's find it
<jo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html
Jo: I don't think the resolution was clear; anyway this is marginal. There was lots of discussion: is it practical or not. So can we leave it non-mandatory?
EdC: you're changing the resolution from "should not" to "may"...?
EdC CTG guidelines: 4.2.9
Jo: you're right
EdC: I also added some references
<jo> ACTION: Jo to move text per eduardo's comment ACTION-989 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1012 - Move text per eduardo's comment ACTION-989 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0143.html [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
Jo: Yay! x-headers. Francois..?
Can someone else scribe?
Francois: .. we're implicitly telling ppl that we can use any header they want, but they can't
Jo: RFC2616 allows "extensions"
that follow http syntax. So we should say nothing. We need to
register the ones that we add to a formal doc
... if you want to use an extension header you don';t need to
register it with anyone.
... shall we note that we've registered the headers we're using
?
<jo> ACTION: Jo to add a note that the X-Headers have been provisionally registered [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1013 - Add a note that the X-Headers have been provisionally registered [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
<EdC> So what is the message you want to convey???
Jo: we'll note we've provisionally registered the x-headers; we're not recommending or prohibiitng doing this
SeanP: I don't read it saying you
can add anything you want
... we're not recommeding it
Jo: happy to remain silent on the issue
EdC: can't prevent ppl adding their own fields; if this has impact on CT Proxies we might want to prohibit it. We should say, for proper operation of CT proxies these are the only extra headers you need.
Jo: have actioned myself 10.13
<inserted> Scribe: EdC
<brucel> cheers, EdC
<jo> Outstanding Points ref CT from Jo
Jo: tackled a number of editorial issues, and identified some remaining points to deal with in his message.
Conformance statement: Francois has been circulating a revised version of the ICS.
<francois> new version of ICS
Jo: Francois mentioned an issue
regarding the conformance statement of mailing/making available
ICS.
... is going to interlink CTG and ICS and put them in the same
directory.
Francois: always assumed that both documents would go along. This would entail some constraints regarding revisions of TR (i.e. mistakes cannot be fixed immediately, there is a heavy process). However, both documents are incomplete without each other.
Jo: should we resolve to publish ICS as an official document.
Francois: people please check that nothing is missing (no normative statement left out). Give opinion about the introduction to the ICS.
Jo: let us give one week to
review the ICS, and elevate the document to LC status on the
next call.
... lingering issue is the definition of "same origin".
... without a precise definition, no meaningful test
suite.
... there is one definition proposed for HTML5 -- but this
introduces a dependency to a draft that may change...
Francois: copy and paste from HTML5 is quite detailed stuff.
Francois: remain silent on the topic?
<SeanP> Same domain policy from Mozilla: https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Same_origin_policy_for_JavaScript
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We remain silent on the meaning of same-origin
Francois: we cannot be more precise at the moment.
<francois> +1
-1
<jo> +1
<SeanP> +1
<francois> [ Wikipedia : The term "origin" is defined using the domain name, application layer protocol, and (in most browsers) TCP port of the HTML document running the script. ]
Francois: same origin is actually formally defined: domain name + application layer protocol + port. Same origin policy is more complicated.
SeanP: Firefox uses the same definition as in Wikipedia.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WE define same orgin to mean matching protocol, domain and port (put suitably in RFC 3986-ese)
<francois> [same origin = same protocol, same host name, and same port]
<SeanP> +1
<francois> +1
+1
<DKA> +1
RESOLUTION: WE define same orgin to mean matching protocol, domain and port (put suitably in RFC 3986-ese)
<jo> ACTION: Jo to insert above definition of same origin in the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1014 - Insert above definition of same origin in the document [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
Question: aren't we implicitly (and abstractly) defining a "same origin policy" with the following text: Proxies must preserve security between requests for domains that are not same-origin in respect of cookies and scripts.
Jo: answers to LC are required before releasing a new LC.
Francois: we must review the answers already drafted.
Francois: the reviewing process must be distributed.
<francois> Last Call comments tracker
Jo: a possibly quick way is to offload the work to Jo.
Francois: there are some resolutions to take for some answers as yet unfinalized.
Francois: resolutions have been taken for the answers to the last LC anyway. Going through them will uncover those that are yet to be done.
Jo: what to do about the CT landscape document?
Francois: we still reference it in the CTG.
<brucel> Bruce needs to leave; action from last week: we have no tests we can offer; sorry
<DKA> yum.
<brucel> next week, gang. bye
Francois: nothing in principle prevents us from publishing as a "working group note".
<jo> ACTION: jo to recommend to group what to do with landscape doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1015 - Recommend to group what to do with landscape doc [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-09-29].
SeanP: the document was initially to state what was to be addressed.
Jo: however, the CTG has evolved,
so the landscape document might no longer be entirely
consistent with the CTG.
... issues to close.
<jo> ISSUE-294?
<trackbot> ISSUE-294 -- All known methods to improve the situation of consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as examples for improving potential https content transformation if it is being used -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/294
<francois> +1 to closing
<francois> close ISSUE-294
<trackbot> ISSUE-294 All known methods to improve the situation of consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as examples for improving potential https content transformation if it is being used closed
<jo> close ISSUE-294
<trackbot> ISSUE-294 All known methods to improve the situation of consent and common understanding of the risks involved, as well as mechanisms to minimize those risks, should be spelled out as examples for improving potential https content transformation if it is being used closed
<francois> ACTION-928?
<trackbot> ACTION-928 -- François Daoust to progress registration of the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject -- due 2009-04-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/928
<francois> close ACTION-928
<trackbot> ACTION-928 Progress registration of the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject closed
<francois> ACTION-956?
<trackbot> ACTION-956 -- François Daoust to review last call comments on CT to see where the responses need editing -- due 2009-04-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/956
Jo: will take the work on 956.
<francois> ACTION-969?
<trackbot> ACTION-969 -- Charles McCathieNevile to forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group -- due 2009-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/969
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-969 and thank Chaals most unctuously for this splendid contribution
<SeanP> +1
<jo> close ACTION-969
<trackbot> ACTION-969 forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group closed
Jo: Francois will inform us about a test suite.
<francois> ACTION-984?
<trackbot> ACTION-984 -- Jo Rabin to (following Francois's ACTION-983) to make sure that a note is put under 4.2.9 to clarify what is and what is not a same docuemnt reference -- due 2009-06-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/984
<francois> close ACTION-984
<trackbot> ACTION-984 (following Francois's ACTION-983) to make sure that a note is put under 4.2.9 to clarify what is and what is not a same docuemnt reference closed
<francois> close ACTION-988
<trackbot> ACTION-988 Proposed text for separate section based on EdC's ACTION-981 and taking into account his refinement of that at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html closed
<francois> close ACTION-989
<trackbot> ACTION-989 Enact resolution on included resources identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above) closed
<francois> close ACTION-990
<trackbot> ACTION-990 Reference the conformance mailing list in the ct doc closed
<francois> ACTION-992?
<trackbot> ACTION-992 -- Jo Rabin to add the text proposed in resolution above on 4.1.5.5 -- due 2009-07-07 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/992
<francois> close ACTION-992
<trackbot> ACTION-992 Add the text proposed in resolution above on 4.1.5.5 closed
<francois> ACTION-993?
<trackbot> ACTION-993 -- Jo Rabin to propose text on same document refernce under 4.2.9 proposing a note to explain that this cannot be used for multiserving environemnts where more than one represenation shares the same URI -- due 2009-07-07 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/993
<francois> close ACTION-993
<trackbot> ACTION-993 Propose text on same document refernce under 4.2.9 proposing a note to explain that this cannot be used for multiserving environemnts where more than one represenation shares the same URI closed
<francois> ACTION-996?
<trackbot> ACTION-996 -- Jo Rabin to add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid inserting too many negatives, not, not -- due 2009-07-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/996
<francois> close ACTION-996
<trackbot> ACTION-996 Add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid inserting too many negatives, not, not closed
<francois> close ACTION-928
<trackbot> ACTION-928 Progress registration of the X- headers irrespective his personal distate for the subject closed
<francois> [ ACTION-959 can be abandoned ]
Francois: about test suites. The only thing needed at this point are collection of tests. Exhorting participants to provide input. The test suite is not required for a LC, but will be needed afterwards.
SeanP: will provide information next week.
<francois> ACTION-959?
<trackbot> ACTION-959 -- François Daoust to enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/959
<francois> close ACTION-959
<trackbot> ACTION-959 Enact the resolution on XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec closed
<francois> [no way to do that action... ]
Jo: will remind Dan about his actions and issues.