- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:35:56 +0100
- To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Hi guys,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-bpwg-minutes.html
... and pasted as text below.
François.
27 Mar 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0078.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, Ed_Mitukiewicz, Heiko, JonathanJ,
Phil_Archer, Sean_Owen, Shahriar, abel, achuter, adam, dom,
drooks, francois, jeffs, manrique, miguel
Regrets
MartinJ, Jo, Murari, rob, AlanTai, Magnus, SeanP, Jason,
chaals, nacho, Kai, kemp
Chair
DKA
Scribe
srowen
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]mobileOK Pro
2. [6]Content Tranformation guidelines
3. [7]Korean TF
4. [8]Accessibility document
5. [9]action items and issue review
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
mobileOK Pro
DKA: Phil, updates on pro?
PhilA: had a meeting yesterday. Working through tests, looking at
past work, and preparing to write more
are the changes that we've already made addressing the issues of
wanting to make the tests more repeatable?
we've made them as repeatable as possible
the posted version on the site is up to date
latest version was attached to a recent mail from Kai on the list
we wonder whether we're heading down the right track -- are the
tests repeatable enough?
<dom> [11]mobileOK Pro latest draft
[11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-pro/2008Mar/att-0017/ED-mobileOK-pro20-tests-20080319.html
<dom> [12]Kai's announcement
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-pro/2008Mar/0017.html
<PhilA>
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-pro/2008Mar/0017
.html
[13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-pro/2008Mar/0017.html
we think the first dozen tests are repeatable, solid
that's the kind of approach we're taking
we will use these as a template for more tests
DKA: people took actions to write more tests yesterday
PhilA: Dan has the first twenty...
we're trying to listen to comments while making rapid progress
DKA: comments, anyone?
(none heard)
we can look forward to a future draft where more tests are fleshed
out
if we can get lazy people like myself to complete their ACTIONs
next topic is content transformation. Francois?
Content Tranformation guidelines
francois: was going to say we need to delay another week, but after
another look, there is little left to address
there will be points to address in the future
the 2-3 remaining issues concern altering header values,
we're having trouble finding a clean solution
so maybe we can agree on a 'dirty' one
for example, when the proxy changes the User-Agent header
DKA: what are the 'dirty' options?
francois: clean solution would have been to embed original headers
using some multipart format
but that isn't transparent for content providers
the dirty solutions are to create an "X-" HTTP header and use it for
this purpose,
or use the ?? HTTP header (what was this?)
final option is to not embed anything
send modified HTTP request if needed
need to agree on one of the the three options
DKA: what's the plan to pick an option?
francois: we'll agree on the next task force call on Tuesday
there are minor issues -- changing wording ins ome parts of the doc
it won't change the doc meaning, just make it more readable
DKA: editorial changes, yes
will we be in a position to implement changes by Wednesday, for
review on Wednesday, and resolve to move to working draft next
Thursday?
francois: will check with Jo to see if he is available on Wednesday
I hope so
DKA: shall we forget this and bless the 'manifesto'?
francois: saw some discussion on the lists, and I wrote a post on
the MWI blog
maybe we can move to BPWG blog
<francois> [14]fd's post
[14]
http://www.w3.org/blog/MWITeam/2008/03/25/content_transformation_guidelines
<Bryan> fyi I will be switching to mobile so I can drive kids to
school
it just notes that the CT taskforce exists and explains its work
maybe would be more visible on the BPWG blog
DKA: don't think we need a public reply or anything; good to have
this post on the BPWG blog
let's post along with the first working draft
francois: yeah, but if the draft is delayed we lose time; it would
be nice to wait, if less than 2 more weeks
DKA: group resolution? don't think it's needed unless there is an
objection
francois: will proceed if there are no objections
(none heard)
DKA: you have thoughts on what if anything could be used from the
manifesto document?
francois: yes, the ideas are already present in the draft for the
most part
"never change the User-Agent header" -- I wish we could say such
things but it's not possible, so we can't use ideas like that
many ideas make sense
many ideas are heuristics for proxy to figure out whether it needs
to transform page or not
but hard to write rules like "must not transform" because few easy
cases truly exist
for example, not converting XHTML pages ever is not a practical idea
won't review this next Tuesday, as we have other issues, but can
take these issues up after that
DKA: next topic is BP2
Bryan: I sent an update and emailed about it, including input from
Jeff
also text about classification of devices
those are the only changes
<dom> [15]new draft of BP2 from bryan
[15]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080327
<dom> [16]Diff since previous version
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080320&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080327
DKA: lots of items in the ACTION queue that may relate to further
input
Bryan are there particular things we should pay attention to in the
new draft?
Bryan: two sections from Jeff -- group should review and provide
comments
I've seen an exchange on the list but not sure how it changes the
text
this addresses script "tuning", matching to capabilities, and the
same for CSS
the other input is on classification of devices. I pulled text from
our developer site with examples of device classification
if this looks good, great, otherwise input is requested
DKA: any comments from the group?
anyone want an action to review this?
We'll have to approach this in a more structured way
Bryan: we have good material in there -- how long to wait until we
go to a public draft?
DKA: Dom, francois, thoughts?
dom: yes I think we should move to a public draft, as it will
trigger review
maybe 1 more week of review, and with no objection, resolve next
week to publish as a public draft
DKA: sounds good
srowen: +1
Bryan: two weeks would be fine too
<dom> Bryan, I think the mention of "mobileOK" in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
D-mobile-bp2-20080327#conformance should be removed
[17]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080327#conformance
even if the doc is incomplete, with working notes, it's better to
get it into the public view
<dom> (agreed)
DKA: next topic is the proposal regarding the Korean task force
this came from the Seoul F2F meeting
clear that it may be a good idea to set up a separate task force
Korean TF
This TF will facilitate more communication input from Korea on BPs,
from Mobile Web 2.0 forum
translating language and requirements for Korean market
<dom> [18]Korean TF charter proposal
[18] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_7gvbm98fv
I will take the liberty of walking people through the doc, Jonathan
<JonathanJ> Proposal document :
[19]http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_7gvbm98fv
[19] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_7gvbm98fv
TF leaders are Seungyun, Jonathan is a member
also Soonho Lee
Jonathan maybe you can answer on IRC -- is the proposal that one or
both task force leaders would represent the task force in the main
working group calls?
<JonathanJ> Yes
I think this is a good proposal and I support it
I characterize this as an experiment
maybe useful to set up additional task forces in local markets
particularly supportive of this because of W3C Korea's and MW 2.0
forum's support
want to continue this relationship
make it more productive
other comments?
I propose we resolve to accept this charter
<JonathanJ> +1
<jeffs> +1
<francois> +1
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We accept the proposed task force charter
document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to set up
the task force as part of the BP group.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We approve the proposed task force
charter document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to
set up the task force as part of the BP group.
<DKA> RESOLUTION: We approve the proposed task force charter
document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to set up
the task force as part of the BP group.
We'll be in touch about setting up mailing lists and other
infrastructure
DKA: next topic, mobility and accessibility
Accessibility document
comments from Sean Henry from WAI outreach -- can you summarize?
achuter: I took an action to reorganize the document after our
conversation
I just sent a message to both groups, a mockup to illustrate how the
information has moved around
there is some feedback so far
some have suggested it is too complicated and a simple version is
needed
things are moving ahead, slowly
DKA: can we take decisions today that would help move that along?
<achuter>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/restructure/Overview.html
[20]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/Overview.html
achuter: no, just have a look at the reorganized document and see if
it makes sense
<achuter>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/restructure/mwbp-wcag20.html
[21]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/mwbp-wcag20.html
this document is for someone familiar with BP, and is now moving to
WCAG
for each WCAG criteria, this specifies how it relates to mobile, and
enumerates success criteria
further on, a section on BPs, which describes how BPs help meet WCAG
success criteria
DKA: who can take an action to review?
... let's create an ISSUE around this
next item is actions and issues review
action items and issue review
<dom> [22]Open action items
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open
<dom> [23]Actions on BP2
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14
let's start with MWBP 2 actions
<dom> ACTION-618?
ACTION-618 on Ed
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-618 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to review Scope of
BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 -- due 2008-01-17 --
OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[24]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/618
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/618
edm: guilty as charged, I don't have time lately...
DKA: let's strike this?
<dom> close ACTION-618
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-618 Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us
about scope of BP2 closed
<dom> ACTION-665?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what
support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[25]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665
[25] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665
DKA: should be against accessibility doc, right?
<dom> [26]context for the action
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-bpwg-minutes.html#action06
<dom> ACTION-691?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-691 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise issue and
start discussion on main page, external resources and so on -- due
2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/691
[27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/691
<dom> [28]context for ACTOIN-691
[28] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04
DKA: haven't done this yet
<dom> ACTION-692?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-692 -- Sunghan Kim to provide some example BP
statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F -- due
2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/692
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/692
<dom> ACTION-693
<dom> ACTION-693?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-693 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise issue with
Dave Raggett in UWA and see if they will take forward from where we
leave off -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/693
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/693
<dom> [31]context for ACTION-693
[31] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action08
<dom> ACTION-694?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-694 -- Daniel Appelquist to review apple
document and summarise the parts that might be applicable to BP2 --
due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[32]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/694
[32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/694
DKA: haven't done it
<dom> ACTION-695?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-695 -- Jonathan Jeon to extract BP statements
from K MWBP 1.5 document for consideration in BP 2.0 -- due
2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[33]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/695
[33] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/695
DKA: if there are contributions to BP 2, now would be a good time
thank you
<dom> ACTION-697?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-697 -- Daniel Appelquist to summarize the
points he can glean from examination of the frost library -- due
2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/697
[34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/697
<dom> ACTION-699?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-699 -- Bryan Sullivan to insert an Appendix
listing the Device properties that BP2 is dependent upon -- due
2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[35]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/699
[35] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/699
Bryan: appendix has been added, but there are no details yet
<dom> close ACTION-699
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-699 Insert an Appendix listing the Device
properties that BP2 is dependent upon closed
<dom> ACTION-700?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-700 -- Bryan Sullivan to introduce a BP on
classification of devices into High, Mid, Low etc on a per
application basis - with an extended non-normative example, pethaps
-- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[36]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/700
[36] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/700
<dom> close ACTION-700
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-700 Introduce a BP on classification of devices
into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an
extended non-normative example, pethaps closed
<dom> ACTION-712?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-712 -- Yeliz Yesilada to review ARIA to see
what could be relevant to BP2 -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[37]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712
[37] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712
<dom> ACTION-704?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-704 -- Kai Scheppe to ensure that mobileOK Pro
Tests doc is put on BPWG agenda -- due 2008-03-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[38]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/704
[38] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/704
<dom> close ACTION-704
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-704 Ensure that mobileOK Pro Tests doc is put
on BPWG agenda closed
<dom> ACTION-712?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-712 -- Yeliz Yesilada to review ARIA to see
what could be relevant to BP2 -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[39]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712
[39] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712
<dom> ACTION-713?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-713 -- Sean Owen to review the AJAX
contribution or ask Adam to do so -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[40]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/713
[40] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/713
<dom> close ACTION-713
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-713 Review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to
do so closed
srowen: done
<dom> [41]Sean's review of AJAX resources
[41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0040.html
srowen: Bryan has digested it and incorporated what seems useful
DKA: any checker updates?
srowen: no, keep fixing bugs -- report some more issues for us
DKA: how about the issue on communicating with Korea?
<dom> ACTION-719?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-719 -- Jeffrey Sonstein to take a look at the
ref in 5.9.4 and summarize it -- due 2008-03-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[42]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/719
[42] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/719
srowen: not sure, but nothing specific: everyone should be reviewing
now, not later. It will be too late in a few weeks
jeffs: will send some more code by emai (?)
5.9.4 and 5.9.5 in latest draft
<dom> [43]Jeff's contribution
[43]
http://www.w3.org/mid/E8CEEC5E-75D2-4E71-8958-DA3C1BA43278%2540it.rit.edu
<jeffs> will send better-formatted-for-html versions today for
posting
<dom> [44]Jeff's contribution on ACTION-719
[44]
http://www.w3.org/mid/04106E8E-0CEE-4CA9-9472-B377DD46B892%2540it.rit.edu
DKA: no more actions to review today, any others?
let's switch to ISSUEs
<dom> [45]open issues
[45] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/open
<dom> ISSUE-237?
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-237 -- What is the definition of a "Mobile Web
Application" for the purposes of BP2? -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[46]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/237
[46] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/237
<dom> [29 messages exchanged on ISSUE-237]
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close issue-237
<dom> [47]Scope of BP2 describes mobile web applications
[47]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080327#scope
DKA: how about mobileOK Basic tests issues?
srowen: Think they are errata for 1.1 -- can leave on the shelf
dom: not sure, may need 1.0 discussion
<dom> [typically, I don't think we can leave mobileOK Basic with
ISSUE-230 not resolved]
<dom> ISSUE-229?
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-229 -- Scope of mobile web applications best
practices -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[48]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229
[48] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229
<dom> +1 to closing ISSUE-229
<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-237
<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-229
DKA: ISSUE-226 -- resolved by chartering of Korea TF, so close this
<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-226
<dom> ISSUE-226?
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-226 -- Recommendations on how to improve
relevance of BPs to Korean market -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[49]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/226
[49] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/226
DKA: checker issues?
srowen: no, don't need group discussion
DKA: CT issues?
francois: "Jo's CT Shopping List" is the important issue but Jo's
not here, not on the agenda
<dom> [I think ISSUE-210 should be moved to the checker bugzilla]
(srowen: OK with that --- this is an enhancement request and not
really an issue, yes)
(also happy to close ISSUE-214 with 'no')
<DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-210
dom: I'll move it into bugzilla now
DKA: any other business?
(none heard)
<JonathanJ> bye
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 16:36:33 UTC