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

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 17 March 2009

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:42:14 +0100
Message-ID: <49C0FA36.9010605@w3.org>
To: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
CC: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Luca,

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.

As you probably know, your comments, as well as all the other comments 
we received during the last call review period, and after that, were and 
are still being heavily discussed by the working group. That explains 
why comments we received more than 6 months ago are still unanswered at 
this point. We haven't forgotten about them.


> 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.

Who are you referring to?

Looking at the list of participants to the upcoming F2F, the usual 
persons involved in CT matters in the working group will be there. 
Eduardo is the exception to the rule here. I strongly hope he can join 
remotely and that attending remotely won't be a bad experience. I trust 
him to raise his hand if that's the case. I trust the rest of the 
participants to listen to him even if they can't actually see him. And I 
trust participants who would happen not to be able to join the F2F to 
yell against resolutions we might take during the F2F.

F2F are an important part of a Working Group's life. Experience shows 
that much progress is made during such F2Fs. We are trying to find a 
good balance between weekly calls, work on mailing-lists and F2F so that 
all participants can contribute to the working group. F2Fs allow to 
spend more time on a given topic. We plan to spend a full day on CT.


> 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?

By following the usual process.

Whatever the resolutions taken during the F2F may be, we will have to:

1. formally reply to all the comments that were received during the last 
call for review period (which include yours). This means you will be 
asked whether you agree with the decision of the group or not. Should 
you disagree, you would then have the possibility to raise a formal 
objection as explained in the Process Document:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection
The Working Group would then have to justify its rationale to the 
Director who would take a final decision.

2. publish another Last Call Working Draft of the Content Transformation 
Guidelines associated with another call for review period, where you 
would have the possibility to raise additional comments and objections.

Thanks,
Francois.

> 
> 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 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 Wednesday, 18 March 2009 13:42:55 UTC

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