W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > May 2008

[minutes] Thursday 15 May 2008 Teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 17:49:01 +0200
Message-ID: <482C5B6D.7020700@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as text below.


Francois.




15 May 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008May/0012.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, DKA, jeffs, Adam, Bryan_Sullivan, abel, Heiko,
           Martin, miguel, jo, manrique, SeanP, Kai, seungyun, Pontus

    Regrets
           drooks, murari, scott, EdM, PhilA, nacho, dom, rob

    Chair
           DKA

    Scribe
           Bryan, francois

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]CT TF progress
          2. [6]accessibility document status
          3. [7]MobileOK status
          4. [8]checker TF status
          5. [9]report from the Korean TF
          6. [10]Korean TF status
          7. [11]BP2
          8. [12]Registration for F2F
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

CT TF progress

    Francois: explaining issue with the CT TF, by charter we agreed CT
    would be informative, but this has consequences. It means we can't
    identify which parts are normative.
    ... also state conformance. The big problem is the patent policy, in
    a normative document any patent issues that conflict must prevent
    the related aspects from being included

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to ask Francois if it is also a consequence
    that the idea of a "conformance claim" does not apply?

    Francois: otherwise there are implications on the status of the
    patent if the functions are included
    ... same issue occured with BP, the link to mobileOK and tests is a
    normative recommendation and conformance is per mobileOK, but there
    is no conformance claim against BP itself

    Dan: that was acceptable as BP was per existing standards, but in
    mobileOK we needed the additional standing provided by normative
    status.
    ... in CT we are working with specific HTTP semantics for signaling
    and headers etc. This gets into potential patent realms, and
    represents a risk. An important issue.

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to observe that this is a "curate's egg" in
    that on the one hand we are slightly bending HTTP and so it's best
    to be non-normative, but on the other hand we'd like

    Francois: Agrees, the CT should be a normative recommendation, which
    requires a charter change, or a new charter i.e. recreate the BPWG

    Jo: rechartering would waste time, we should avoid it. patent policy
    should also be avoided. we need conformance though. Could we use a
    2nd document as a conformance checker?

    Francois: that doesn't change that to add the other document as
    normative we need a charter change

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to add that perhaps we could have a
    TranformingOK Basic

    Dan: thus to the final point; we could roll the change into charter
    extension if we seek it. Francois has indicated we may need an
    extension and 6 mos will probably be needed.
    ... to the conclusion that we should table this and amend the
    charter at extension time, and release it then (doing the work now
    but republish it as normative then)

    <jo> [think we should aim to bring the work to a conclusion within
    the charter and not mess around leaving it in limbo]

    Bryan: could an interim publication be done per the IPR issues?

    Francois: we could take it to last call but not publish it

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to reiterate what I just typed into IRC

    Dan: the question is whether the IPR issues are important for the
    long term, and whether it will inhibit implementations in the
    meantime

    Jo: we should conclude with a non-normative document and leave it at
    that

    Dan: a question to the vendors here; what is your stance per
    implementation if the status is normative, any risks that would
    delay implementation?

    <seungyun> sorry noise for seungyun

    <seungyun> ok

    Sean: don't have a clear understanding of the normative vs
    informative issue; inclination is that it probably doesn't matter
    much

    Dan: it relates to IPR and patent infringement, an important topic;
    if non-normative, any patents that are essential to the
    implementation of the recommendation do not have to be clearly
    stated
    ... thus implementors could be liable for payments after the fact,
    whereas if normative these patents dependencies must be declared
    during publication

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to point out that the patent disclosure only
    applies to members of the group so the protection is limited

    <DKA> zakim DKA.a is DKA

    Jo: patent disclosures only apply to group members, and outside
    patents don't get disclosed so there are still risks of
    infringement. the W3c rules are there to prevent deliberate/covert
    patent dependencies created by members.
    ... what guarantee is there of protection against patents even if
    the document is normative? not much

    Francois: agree, this is limited to members.

    <jo> [conclusion being that we should seek qualified/competent legal
    advice]

    Dan: an opinion from W3C legal is good, but opinions from vendors
    are also helpful

    Sean: may be able to get an opinion
    ... don't want to hold up the work though

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to say that we should hold off on further
    discussion and to defer till we have more info via FD

    Dan: that's a motive for rechartering the group

    <jo> ACTION: daoust to seek further legal advice on the patent
    issues around CT [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-756 - Seek further legal advice on the
    patent issues around CT [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2008-05-22].

    Dan: let's take an action to get vendor internal legal opinions (at
    least from Sean) and come back with results, and from W3C via
    Francois

    <jo> ACTION: Patterson to seek opinion on CT Patent issue [recorded
    in [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-757 - Seek opinion on CT Patent issue
    [on Sean Patterson - due 2008-05-22].

accessibility document status

    Dan: may have to push this to next week as Alan is not here

MobileOK status

    Dan: need to take resolution to move this to last call again as
    substantive changes have occured

    Jo: there was discussion on this that can be referenced

    <jo> [16]Last (4) Call Draft discussion on MobileOK Basic

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008May/0002.html

    Jo: it was related to object size and tasting requests

    Miguel: recommend to use the same algorithm for both test, for page
    size limit its OK, for embedded objects e.g. scripts it's
    complicated and needs simplification
    ... correction, we should use two algorithms (not one)

    <jo> [17]The Publication Notice on Last Call Draft (4) of MobileOK
    Basic

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008May/0001.html

    Dan: the document is long overdue, the request seems an optimization
    of the current document. this could be done but am reluctant to
    reopen the discussion
    ... the one substantive change is the point of the 2nd last call; if
    we reopen general comments, worried about where this goes

    Jo: asked for input on this as the algorithms are different, based
    on that they are different use cases
    ... the change is an attempt to fix an incorrect text. it may be OK
    for the algorithms to be different thoughas browser behavior is
    different for the use cases
    ... as editor I feel that I have made the right change, but group
    discussion may be helpful to be sure

    Dan: if we want to change this, them Miguel should explain in great
    detail what is requested with a specific proposal, and discuss this
    on the next call

    Miguel: can do that

    Dan: should raise an issue for this

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to raise an Issue on the differences between the
    algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-758 - Raise an Issue on the differences
    between the algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [on
    Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-22].

    Dan: any other things we can resolve on the last call, other than
    just to resolve to move it back?

    Jo: there is a need to to review the algorithm for OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT
    as it is not what we resolved as a correction to the CR version of
    the algorithm

checker TF status

    Francois: the checker TF has no leader; DOM is busy and said no.
    Nominate an active member is another approach.

    Abel: have talked to Nacho, but he can't take this role; but Miguel
    and I have offered to chair the TF

    Dan: any other contenders?
    ... we should take a resolution

    Abel: the point of co-chairing is to ensure availability of one of
    us at least

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's
    offer to co-chair the checker task force.

    +1

    <francois> +1

    <jeffs> +1

    <seungyun> +1

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's
    offer to be co-leaders of the checker task force.

    <francois> +1

    <jo> +1

    <jeffs> +1

    <MartinJ> +1

    RESOLUTION: The group accepts Miguel's and Abel's offer to be
    co-leaders of the checker task force.

report from the Korean TF

    <seungyun> I try but...

    <seungyun> yes

    <seungyun> my microphone has some problem I will check

Korean TF status

    <seungyun> see -->
    [19]http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_20hqnfq7fr

      [19] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_20hqnfq7fr

    Seungyun: sent an email status to the list; we had the 1st meeting
    on May 8, discussion on consensus of deliverables list and
    milestones
    ... three deliverables for this year; gap analysis, new standard
    proposals, and mobileOK trial service report
    ... discussed how to make a gap analysis and new standard proposal.
    we have a lot of documents in BPWG, so we needed to categorize them
    first prior to gap analysis
    ... also the gap analysis should address the Korean market. 1st
    draft of gap analysis will be reviewed in the next meeting.
    ... We have a request for the BPWG to update the TF milestones and
    TF home page editing ability.

    <francois> [I will handle home page update and request edition
    rights as needed]

    Seungyun: the 1st meeting was F2F, the 2nd will be a call next week
    (5/20).
    ... we have assigned the work items to the members as the scope is
    broad, to prepare the work for next week.

    Dan: Francois will take care of the web site editing and roadmap
    requests

    <francois> ACTION: daoust to update home page roadmap with the
    Korean TF documents [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-759 - Update home page roadmap with the
    Korean TF documents [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2008-05-22].

    Dan: any input that the Korean TF can provide to us re the pending
    issue on the MobileOK last call?
    ... as the status of MobileOK for Korea is a question, this could be
    a topic for the next TF call.
    ... also need to know if there will be a TF rep at Sophia Antopolis

    Seungyun: unclear at this point

    Jo: how far has the gap analysis gone, and any idea how big the gap
    may be?

    Seungyun: this is unclear (how big) at this point; many people want
    W3C standards to be useful in Korean market, so the gap analysis is
    just the starting point

    Jo: in the Seoul meeting it was clarified that MobileOK is not
    something to aim for, but is a minimum possible exerience and web
    sites should aim higher.

    Seungyun: Understand; we expect BP2 will be more useful for the
    Korean market and will provide input (have done so already)

    Dan: proposes Jo send an email to clarify the point about MobileOK
    not being the expected experience as the baseline for gap analysis

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to
    Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-760 - Reiterate the caveat on MobileOK
    in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [on Jo Rabin - due
    2008-05-22].

BP2

    Dan: proposes we step back and review the current document as it is,
    and take actions for volunteers for changes etc

    Dan: proposes to provoke discussion about the existing document
    areas and where we want it to go

    Dan: from a scratchpad into a document which represents group
    consensus
    ... perhaps list the BP and get direct feedback on any issues
    remaining related to it

    <francois> ScribeNick: francois

    <scribe> Scribe: francois

    Dan: jo, wisdom? Bryan suggested we hold a separate meeting

    jo: we should probably do that
    ... to get the group's input on what is wrong, missing, etc...
    ... we're mostly concerned about stuff that may be wrong or may be
    additional
    ... we don't want to go to FPWD with something that we know is wrong
    ... As for things missing, that's the point of getting external
    comment with a FPWD

    <jo> [general assessment criteria: what's missing? what's additional
    (out of scope)? Anything wrong, or uncertain? Typographic Errors.

    Bryan: the way the document is structured very much grew out of what
    was BP1.
    ... I made some proposals regarding restructuring back in November
    ... Question of scope: I don't think anything is wrong. But perhaps
    some things are out of scope. We may need to define what we mean by
    Web for instance
    ... We should settle those first.

    Dan: not sure there's such a great divergence of opinions, but I may
    be overly optimistic

    <jeffs> agree it seems to me as new to group that there may indeed
    be some basic diff of opinions about what we mean by "Web" and
    "mobile"

    Bryan: in the draft I sent last night, I would like to give a quick
    overview of the changes
    ... We had a discussion on what could constitutes a best practice.
    ... I eliminated the issue with persistent storage. I think we'll
    have to deal with that, but that does not constitute a real best
    practice for the time being
    ... I think I improved section 2.1 to 2.5, to bring a network
    service provider perspective.
    ... That's why, we, AT&T, try to promote these kinds of documents.

    Dan: I agree with these comments.
    ... I sent an email to adam to flag sections that require changes,
    more work.
    ... I'll paste it to the mailing-list

    Adam: I think they are very subtle differences on the way we see
    "mobile web", so I would like to contribute with specific wording to
    settle scope
    ... No big dissensions
    ... Title: Mobile Web Application Best Practices, should we change
    it?

    Bryan: my mistake, I didn't make that change, we resolved on that

    Adam: Other general question. I think the document is quite wordy.
    Sections 2 and 5, is this the normal way to go?

    Dan: based on the structure of BP1. I think that having the list of
    BPS on top of the document allows people that consume the doc to
    access BPs directly.

    Adam: yes, I just don't really understand the differences in intent
    between both sections

    Bryan: 1. come from with BP1, 2. typical of technical docs. I agree,
    I think we should consolidate section 2 and section 5.

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to say that we need to express clearly "what
    are the questions we are trying to answer" and "what are the
    answers"

    Dan: editorial meeting?

    jo: can I just say, that re. section 2. and 5., I don't think the
    structure has to be the same, but we should express clearly the
    questions we are trying to answer, and then the answers
    ... I agree that devs being what they are, they speed up to BPS, but
    they are wrong.

    <jeffs> agree that 2 & 5 should *not* be consolidated, Q's and avail
    A's are not the same things

    Bryan: Recraft section 2 in terms of what you're talking about,
    shifting some details to consolidate section 5.

    Dan: we could try to organize this editorial meeting. I could
    organize a room here in London. Next week is not good for me. Let's
    try to fnid a date on the mailing-list.
    ... Editorial meetings are opened to anyone who is willing to attend

Registration for F2F

    -> [22]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/ F2F
    questionnaire

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-F2F-June-2008/

    ->
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/Sophia/logistics.
    html F2F logistics

      [23] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/Sophia/logistics.html

    fd: respond to the questionnaire!

    <hgerlach> bye, thanks!

    <seungyun> thanks bye

    <manrique> bye

    <DKA> Thx, Francios!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to seek further legal advice on the patent
    issues around CT [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to update home page roadmap with the Korean TF
    documents [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to raise an Issue on the differences between the
    algorithms in OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response to
    Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Patterson to seek opinion on CT Patent issue [recorded
    in [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 15:49:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC