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

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 17 March 2009

From: Tom Hume <tom.hume@futureplatforms.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:57:53 +0000
Message-Id: <EEF35031-F82A-4AF6-B01E-508B1FD0CF49@futureplatforms.com>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Luca

I think you may have missed the section in the minutes where Jo is  
actioned to sort out a conf call bridge, so that others can  
participate in conversations remotely. Bryan and Eduardo (maybe  
others) are planning to attend in this fashion, I think.

I plan to attend on the Thursday, and as you know I don't work for a  
big company - though in the interests of transparency I should reveal  
that Future Platforms Ltd will be generously funding my train fare, to  
the tune of roughly £34. God willing, I'll have the moral strength to  
resist this corporate influence.

Tom

On 18 Mar 2009, at 11:46, Luca Passani wrote:

>
> Hello Francois
>
> > CT discussions/resolutions were left for the F2F.
>
> I am a bit worried about this. As you know, I and others who  
> represent the viewpoint of content owners have invested considerable  
> amounts of our time to make sure that the views of certain operators  
> (Voda, ATT) and certain transcoder vendors (novarra, opera and  
> openwave) are balanced by our own view in the creation of CTG.
> Unfortunately, it appears that all of those who represent this  
> counter-viewpoint (including me, of course, but I am ot part of  
> BPWG, anyway) will be unable to fly to the F2F simply because they  
> do not have a company which will/can sponsor their partecipation.
> In short, there is a high risk, that all the investment in  
> participating in the discussion over several months is made void  
> when resourceful corporations pay to get their people to physically  
> seat behind the same table and take decisions which ignore the  
> viewpoint which others had expressed previously.
>
> Question: How does W3C plan to make sure that this does not happen?
>
> Thank you
>
> Luca
>
> Francois Daoust ha scritto:
>> 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 François 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 François 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]
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Future Platforms
e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
work: www.futureplatforms.com
play: tomhume.org
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:58:31 UTC

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