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

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 17 March 2009

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:16:59 +0100
Message-ID: <49C1FF7B.8060100@w3.org>
To: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
CC: public-bpwg@w3.org
Luca Passani wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Francois. The fact that calling in is allowed certainly 
> reflects positively on W3C.
> 
> I know that being remote is a  serious disadvantage over being 
> physically present, in terms of making one's voice heard, but still it 
> is much better than virtually closed doors.
> 
> Is this still reserved to BPWG partecipants and invited experts only?

Yes, weekly calls and F2F are reserved to working group participants.

Francois.


> 
> thanks
> 
> Luca
> 
> Francois Daoust ha scritto:
>> 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 Thursday, 19 March 2009 08:17:41 UTC

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