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

[minutes] 19 May 2009 Teleconference

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 16:21:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4A12C053.7030302@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>

The minutes of today's call are available at:

... and copied as text below.

Short call. Main points:
- We discussed JSON parsing, acknowledged the performance impact but are 
concerned about security.
- We discussed a BP around the use of OpenID but don't think OpenID can 
be specifically called out.

See the minutes for more details.


Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

19 May 2009


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0027.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-bpwg-irc


           Francois, brucel, DKA, abel, Kai_Dietrich, SeanP, jsmanrique

           EdC, adam, jo, alanc, Bryan, jeffs, yeliz, sangwhan, rob, tom




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]MWABP: JSON parsing
          2. [6]MWABP - Kai's Hendry comment
          3. [7]Addendum to BP
          4. [8]CT
          5. [9]Issues and Actions
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

MWABP: JSON parsing

    brucel: I talked to some of the guys in Opera. We don't have any
    formal tests that we've done and that we could share, but the "10
    times" figure sounds correct to anyone.
    ... whether we should reconsider is another topic, but the impact of
    performance is real.

    dka: ok, that's an important point.

    <brucel> Opera also agreed that security concerns are v important

    francois: dom replied with the same arguments I raised before.
    ... The problem is with security. It's hard to write a BP that has
    security implications.

    <brucel> Anne van Kesteran just replied to me that "soon browsers
    will have native JSON parsers" but that's not a BP for now

    dka: ok so we need to find some balance between security and

MWABP - Kai's Hendry comment

    Jun/0002.html Kai Hendry's comment


    francois: it's more or less a suggestion that we have a BP around
    the use of OpenID

    dka: I think it's worth considering. Maybe not talking specifically
    about OpenID.
    ... Do you think it fits into the mobile space?

    francois: it may not be mobile enough and also with OpenID you need
    to enter a URI to log into a site so this might not be appropriate
    for the mobile space.

    francois: Also FOAF+SSL technology might remove the need to enter
    u+p but this is still an emerging technology.

    francois: I love OpenID but ...

    <DKA> So do I!

    dka: my view would be that it's incorrect to have a BP that
    specifically calls out OpenID.

    <brucel> +1 with dka for usability issues

    dka: I think it's worth discussing on the mailing-list.
    ... Using one OpenID could ease remembering of the URI by browsers,
    but that's not implemented in browsers for the time being AFAICT.

Addendum to BP

    <jsmanrique> Zakim abel_.a is jsmanrique

    kai: the status really hasn't changed. Jo should reword to have some
    linguistic integrity within the document and set another editorial

    dka: I know Jo's really busy these days, so I'm a bit worried about
    that. Is it possible that we re-assign this action to someone else?

    kai: Phil Archer had offered to do that.

    dka: He's the one I had in mind, indeed.

    <scribe> ACTION: dan to get in touch with Phil and Jo with a view to
    having the Addendum reviewed for consistency [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-963 - Get in touch with Phil and Jo with a
    view to having the Addendum reviewed for consistency [on Daniel
    Appelquist - due 2009-05-26].

    kai: I would be happy to do that as well.

    dka: let me start this, and I'll get out of the way.

    kai: good.
    ... what about the second editorial session?

    francois: another one was planned indeed, but it's kind of linked to
    the above action on dan to see if Phil can replace Jo.


    dka: anything we could discuss?

    francois: I don't think so. We need to see the result of the
    discussion put into words. Editorial work.

    seanp: I agree with francois.

    dka: I guess that's another point to try to remove the addendum from
    Jo's hand so that he may focus on the CT guidelines.

    <brucel> More on the JSOn question: It would only make the app run
    10x slower if evaling the incoming data is the major performance
    bottleneck. If that's the case you might be better off dumping json
    altogether and going for a format that is optimized for your needs
    rather than designed to be flexible (see e.g. [$1\47] for an example
    complete with numbers).

    <brucel> [$1\47]


    dka: any other point?

    francois: not from me. About relationship between WCAG and MWBP, the
    Education and Outreach WG is to review the doc on Friday. Hopefully
    publication early next week.

Issues and Actions

    <DKA> ACTION-692?

    <trackbot> ACTION-692 -- Sunghan Kim to provide some example BP
    statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F -- due
    2008-03-11 -- CLOSED


      [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/692

    <DKA> ACTION-962?

    <trackbot> ACTION-962 -- Fran├žois Daoust to reach out for comments
    on MWABP via the BPBlog -- due 2009-05-19 -- OPEN


      [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/962

    francois: I published a blog post, no comment received so far.

    close ACTION-962

    <trackbot> ACTION-962 Reach out for comments on MWABP via the BPBlog


    <trackbot> ACTION-959 -- Fran├žois Daoust to enact the resolution on
    XHTML Basic 1.1 revision - when it reaches rec -- due 2009-05-19 --


      [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/959

    francois: this action is pending the publication of XHTML Basic 1.1
    as a new Rec.

    dka: OK, I think we should probably close this call at this point.

    <brucel> hugs

    <jsmanrique> bye

    dka: Thanks everyone, we'll pick up the topics next week when we
    have more time and resources.

    <SeanP> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: dan to get in touch with Phil and Jo with a view to
    having the Addendum reviewed for consistency [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:21:42 UTC

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