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

[minutes] Tuesday 17 March 2009

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:55:26 +0100
Message-ID: <49BFB9DE.3030609@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/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.

In short:
- we discussed next week's F2F agenda, see:
  http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/London3/logistics.html

- we discussed the possibility to add file:// support to the mobileOK 
Checker:
  * I am to see what needs to be changed in the library to be able to 
keep a "clean" reference implementation extended for the file:// needs. 
I'll present my results during the F2F.
  * We welcome Abel, Miguel and Nacho's proposal to work on a possible 
WG note on applying mobileOK tests to files (we should probably agree on 
the changes to make to the core library before we start working on the 
WG note though).

- CT discussions/resolutions were left for the F2F.

Thanks,
Francois.



17 Mar 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0112.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, jo, tomhume, Bryan_Sullivan, rob, yeliz, dstorey,
           SeanP, jeffs, jsmanrique

    Regrets
           adam, abel, miguel, manrique, Dom

    Chair
           jo

    Scribe
           tomhume

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]F2F London 25-27 March
          2. [6]mobileOK Checker - discussion of file: scheme URIs
          3. [7]CT Guidelines New Version
          4. [8]BP Addendum - Next Steps
          5. [9]AOB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

F2F London 25-27 March

    <francois> [11]F2F agenda

      [11] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/London3/logistics.html

    jo: Idea is to spend Wednesday on MWABP, Thursday on CT, tidying up
    on Friday
    ... including tidying up remaining mobile accessibility issues,
    checker library, etc.

    yeliz: will be there on Friday

    jo: we have mobileOK scheme

    francois: not heard from Rigo, hope to have something by the F2F

    jo: need to ping Korean folks for a written update

    <EdC> three questions about the agenda: (1) are the times indicated
    local UK time? (2) any detailed schedule? (3) numbers for
    teleconference?

    bryan: I shan't be there in person, conf call bridge would be good.

    <jo> ACTION: JO to talk to Adam about getting a conf bridge set up
    for f2f [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-915 - Talk to Adam about getting a conf
    bridge set up for f2f [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-03-24].

    francois: will ping Rigo

    jo: times of the agenda are in GMT

mobileOK Checker - discussion of file: scheme URIs

    jo: Adam's issued 2 new drafts for MWABP

    francois: the mobileOK checker libraries only apply to HTTP/HTTPS
    URI schemes. There could be a useful use case where you want to run
    tests on a file. Most web content is local before it's published.

    <yeliz> sorry about the echo, it seems like there is something wrong
    with my connection today :(

    francois: you might want to check it before you publish it. Some of
    the tests do not mean anything outside of HTTP(S), some do and are
    useful - e.g. page size
    ... Yeliz can probably talk about it, I wanted to update the checker
    library and add the possibility to check files. We've discussed a
    little on the checker mailing lists and have some ideas for how to
    add support for file:// URIs. It would mean that the library
    contains code that is not defined in the standard, in particular an
    additional test outcome ("CANNOTTELL")
    ... but it's not mobileOK if it's not in the standard, as Jo has
    pointed out. The Java library is supposed to be a reference
    implementation of the standard, so I don't know if we can extend it
    with something outside of the standard.
    ... We wanted to get the WGs opinion. Do we need to duplicate the
    code and work on a separate version of the library? Or can we
    incorporate the changes and add file:// scheme support to the
    library?
    ... We might want to issue another document explaining how to test
    file://

    <EdC> Can you parameterize the library with a switch for "standard
    mobileOK" and "development mode"? Via a configuration file, for
    instance?

    francois: I think it's useful for us to go ahead with this. Abel
    proposed to write the WG Note. I'm not sure we need to do this.

    jo: I agree

    <Zakim> Bryan, you wanted to why not run a local server
    ([13]http://localhost) instead - this is easy?

      [13] http://localhost)/

    bryan: a consistent scheme is a good idea. All you can do with
    file:// is check a static page, which isn't very common in terms of
    real live applications

    jo: the point about mobileOK is that it tests the operation of your
    server when serving content - i.e. in the real world.

    bryan: that's my point

    yeliz: we want to combine the mobileOK library with another for
    validating documents. It would be good to use some of the mobileOK
    tests with local files. This could be used for other people (e.g.
    designers) wanting to check documents before they upload them. e.g.
    the HTML validator lets you upload and validate a doc.
    ... you can't do all the tests, but a CANNOTTELL would accommodate
    this.

    <yeliz> sorry about the echo:(

    <EdC> question: is the file:// scheme used in some Web applications
    to access the local storage?

    <jo> jo: wondering if there is a way of leaving the reference
    implementation intact and dealing with file: scheme by subclassing?

    <Bryan> fyi I have to go on IRC only for the next hour - will be
    back asap

    francois: I had the same idea - we could do this without altering
    the ref. implementation. There are a couple of things we can do, but
    it can't be done completely by subclassing.

    <EdC> question: is the file:// scheme used in some Web applications
    to access the local storage? If yes, shouldn't the scheme be dealt
    with in the test harness?

    francois: I would like to keep the ref. implementation clean

    ed: if file:/// is used by web applications, the harness should
    handle it surely?

    jo: mobileOK only tests http(s) URIs

    <jo> ACTION: daoust to prepare some material for F2F identifying
    what changes would be needed to the mobileOK checker to allow
    subclassing for file: scheme handling [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

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

    jo: if Abel, Miguel and Nacho would like to write a note, we'd be
    happy for them to do it

    francois: maybe we should make sure they're not working on something
    we might abandon first...

    yeliz: what's involved in writing a note about this?

    jo: the idea would be to write a WG Note (informative doc, not
    recommendation) pointing out the differences in the tests

    <yeliz> yes, thanks

    <yeliz> :)

CT Guidelines New Version

    jo: new version posted on Friday 13th. Francois has noted some typos
    - thankyou - and there are lots of outstanding issues, which I've
    yet to post.

    <francois> [15]CT announcement by Jo

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0103.html

    jo: these will hopefully get out today/soon
    ... unless anyone has anything to say about this now, we should
    defer til next week
    ... (at the F2F). Sean, Rob? You may want to comment on HTTPS link
    rewriting or link rewriting

    rob: happy to keep that for the list

    seanP: I need to look it over a bit

    jo: hoping to resolve this issue (the main outstanding one, tho
    there are others we need to go back on, in particular Eduardo's
    point re changing/replacing headers)

    ed: happy to deal with this and the other topics next week

    <francois> [I note I'll have a bit to report on X-Device-headers
    next week based on a discussion with IETF]

    francois: are you thinking we misunderstood what a same-document
    reference is?

    jo: either I've misunderstood what they mean or it doesn't quite
    work

BP Addendum - Next Steps

    jo: the poll said no-one was happy for it to advance to a WG Note
    ... so there's more work to do. Kai's not on the call today. I've
    scheduled half a days editorial session on this on Friday pm
    ... we need to check Kai will be there for that
    ... the November questionnaire hasn't been answered much

    francois: we only have 1 day left to answer the poll

    <Bryan> jo, post the questionairre link please

    jo: wondering if more folks can attend the F2F if it's not in San
    Diego

    <Bryan> I prefer San Diego!

    jo: can we reopen this questionnaire with the additional answer "I
    could attend if it's elsewhere"

    <EdC> "if it's elsewhere" is really a bit vague. Most answers will
    be "I do not know"...

    jo: if we're to extend the charter we need another F2F. It'll either
    need to be there, or somewhere else.

    <jo> ACTION: daoust to extend the TPAC Noc Questionnaire and add a
    question to assess whether the meeting would be better attended if
    it was held somewhere else [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-917 - Extend the TPAC Noc Questionnaire
    and add a question to assess whether the meeting would be better
    attended if it was held somewhere else [on Fran├žois Daoust - due
    2009-03-24].

    jo: there won't be a call next Tuesday because of the F2F and we
    don't usually have calls post-F2F unless someone wants one. So no
    call on 31.03

    <EdC> You mean 7th of April...

    jo: We will be back to normal time for everyone on 7 April.

AOB

    <Bryan> jo, can you post the questionaire link, I can't find it on
    the BPWG homepage

    <jeffs> bye

    <jeffs> quit

    <Bryan> oh well

    <jsmanrique> bye

    <jo> bryan - francois will re-post to the list

    <francois> and will update the WG home page to link to it, yes.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to extend the TPAC Noc Questionnaire and add a
    question to assess whether the meeting would be better attended if
    it was held somewhere else [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to prepare some material for F2F identifying
    what changes would be needed to the mobileOK checker to allow
    subclassing for file: scheme handling [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: JO to talk to Adam about getting a conf bridge set up
    for f2f [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 14:56:10 UTC

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