W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > April 2009

[minutes] 14 April 2009 Teleconference

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:17:44 +0200
Message-ID: <49E49B08.2010209@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,

The minutes of today's short call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2009/04/14-bpwg-minutes.html
... and pasted as text below.

Thanks,
Francois.


-----
14 Apr 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Apr/0012.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/14-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           tomhume, JonathanJ, +1.774.811.aaaa, Francois, DKA, yeliz,
           +41.31.972.aabb, EdC, +0207287aacc, rob, +1.630.414.aadd,
           SeanP, +49.842.9.aaee, nacho, miguel

    Regrets
           manrique, adam, jeffs, kai, abel, Bryan

    Chair
           DKA

    Scribe
           Tom

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Checker update
          2. [6]Status CT Guidelines
          3. [7]Reviewing Jonathan's Proposal
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    dka: Not a lot of activity on the mailing list since we last met,
    and lots of regrets for today
    ... Alan and Kai both send regrets, which rules out any discussion
    on BP2 or the addendum to BP1
    ... Adam will have a new draft of BP2 ready for next Tuesday tho.
    ... the idea being to issue a new draft prior to that telecon.

Checker update

    <francois> [9]mobileOK Checker re-factoring details

       [9] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2009Apr/0000.html

    francois: We talked about this a couple of weeks ago. During the F2F
    I agreed to refactor the mobileOK Checker library to make it more
    flexible. I'm mostly done and committed.
    ... Don't think I need to go deeply into coding considerations here;
    but the new version isn't totally backwards-compatible, other than
    from an external POV.
    ... Any questions or comments, feel free to email the checker
    mailing list or contact me privately.
    ... Small TODOs have been listed in the code itself, I'll do some
    minor editing in the upcoming days.

    <francois>
    [10]http://dev.w3.org/2007/mobileok-ref/docs/org/w3c/mwi/mobileok/ba
    sic/package-summary.html#package_description

      [10] 
http://dev.w3.org/2007/mobileok-ref/docs/org/w3c/mwi/mobileok/basic/package-summary.html#package_description

    francois: I tried to detail as much as possible what I did. I
    regenerated the library javadocs. The code is the same as before,
    but now you can make your dreams come true and extend the library
    without having to touch the library itself.

    yeliz: Thanks. Can we use the code, or are there some more changes
    to be made?

    francois: I'll make some minor ones, but nothing that makes a
    difference to how you plug into the library.

    dka: what impact does this have on the validator itself, the W3C
    mobileOK checker? When does the code you've written become the code
    that underlies the checker?

    francois: none, I've not released it so far. What was mobileOK is
    still mobileOK. I still need to make a few small changes, at this
    point I wouldn't consider it to be 100% stable though it passes our
    test suite.
    ... I have no schedule right now, but ASAP. The new version should
    be more performant (multithreading was improved whilst doing it).
    ... The Korean guys should be able to build on top of it to create a
    derivation of the mobileOK standard, and Yeliz should be able to add
    file support.

    dka: we should make sure the new version is released to the HUGE
    SERVER FARM that W3C has installed to run the validator

    nacho: we haven't had enough time to review the code from Francois
    ... but we'll take a look at it and keep in touch during the week

    <francois> ACTION-916?

    <trackbot> ACTION-916 -- Fran├žois Daoust to prepare some material
    for F2F identifying what changes would be needed to the mobileOK
    checker to allow subclassing for file: scheme handling -- due
    2009-03-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/916

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/916

    <francois> close ACTION-916

    <trackbot> ACTION-916 Prepare some material for F2F identifying what
    changes would be needed to the mobileOK checker to allow subclassing
    for file: scheme handling closed

Status CT Guidelines

    dka: no update from Jo
    ... is a new updated draft needed before we can go any further?

    francois: I have 2 actions: an hour to send a summary on the
    same-origin policy test conformance. I would like to send my
    findings to the mailing list before we discuss it. It's mostly
    ready.
    ... The second is on the x-device header registration and I haven't
    had time to make any progress on this

Reviewing Jonathan's Proposal

    <DKA> ACTION-922?

    <trackbot> ACTION-922 -- Jonathan Jeon to look at how the existing
    headings could be improved and to propose classiification groupings
    that are orthogonal (don't talk about the same things) -- due
    2009-04-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/922

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/922

    <DKA> Jonathan - do you have an update on this action?

    <JonathanJ> Past week, I have sent a proposal for ACTION-922.

    <JonathanJ>
    [13]http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pI9qmqLP3vij6U574ZhUeCQ&h
    l=ko

      [13] 
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pI9qmqLP3vij6U574ZhUeCQ&hl=ko

    <francois> [14]Jonathan's proposal

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Apr/0007.html

    dka: the idea was to reclassify some of the sections within BP2
    ... I don't think we can have this conversation with Adam on the
    call, but we can close off the action.

    <JonathanJ> OK.

    dka: and next week when we're discussing BP2 we can incorporate
    this.

    francois: Is the idea to change the heading for the time being?

    dka: during the F2F Jonathan made a proposal (a good one) that we
    should use a cross-referencing scheme for the different BPs and
    BP2.0
    ... so if we're still having them in a hierarchical structure, we'll
    need one that doesn't conflict with that tagging.

    francois: this is the renaming of sub-headings, and we need to come
    up with some tagging for BP?

    dka: yes.
    ... to an extent this is editorial. So it's good to do and to think
    about, but doesn't change the recommendations, it's a better way to
    find or classify them.

    <francois> close ACTION-922

    <trackbot> ACTION-922 Look at how the existing headings could be
    improved and to propose classiification groupings that are
    orthogonal (don't talk about the same things) closed

    dka: meanwhile, back at the actions... I don't see much else we can
    talk about today in terms of actions on these documents.
    ... lots of folks aren't here or are on holiday.

    francois: nothing else from me

    dka: we should close the call, unless anyone has anything else
    they'd like to raise?

    <DKA> [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open

    <DKA> <silence for emphasis>

    dka: back next week then!

    <nacho> bye all

    <yeliz_> bye

    <JonathanJ> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 14:18:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC