- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:17:05 +0100
- 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/2010/01/12-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
Discussions around Mobile Web Application Best Practices were postponed
to next week.
We have resolved the remaining 3 last call comments on the Guidelines
for Web Content Transformation Proxies:
- In respect of LC-2358 resolve no, we understand the point but have
debated this at length previously and this is the best title we could
think of.
- In respect of LC-2359, resolve partial. We agree that it is heavy
handed but it is the only mechanism provided by RFC 2616. We will
amplify the note regarding possible damaging effects of using it - at
present this notes that WAP gateways may mis-operate in its presence
- In respect of LC-2360, resolve no. The document specifies a SHOULD for
validation, so this should not be an issue, we think.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
12 Jan 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0002.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/12-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
jo, francois, tomhume, miguel, EdC, brucel, SeanP, DKA
Regrets
yeliz, kai
Chair
Jo
Scribe
Tom Hume
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Administrative Arrangements
2. [6]Mobile Web Application Best Practices
3. [7]CT Guidelines
4. [8]AOB
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Administrative Arrangements
<francois> [10]BPWG's charter
[10] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/MWBP-WG-charter.html
francois: the group was extended until the end of June 2010. There
was an official announcement, the charter of the WG (linked from
home page of WG) shows the end date.
... Jo, you have been reappointed as co-chair of MWBPG
... We're back to normal.
jo: I left .mobi and therefore the W3C on 14.12.2009, prior to doing
that I made arrangements (effected by Francois) to be appointed an
invited expert
... so have been reappointed as chair. I'm a different chair this
year.
<brucel> slightly better padded?
jo: We're effectively back to where we are, but I no longer
represent dot mobi
... We took a resolution last year that calls should be an hour
long, and we're thinking of dropping the frequency of them (with a
certain set of deliverables)
... At the F2F we sketched out a timetable for delivering
deliverables.
<francois> [11]schedule for 2010
[11]
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaebQqOaNtbYZGQzams4dl8xNjVwejVrMjhndw&hl=en
jo: We want to get everything done by mid-Feb, then wait for stuff
to come through.
... With no call last week, we're already behind.
francois: the focus of the group is on MWABP, but we don't expect to
spend much time on it. The second focus is on CT where we still have
a lot of work - the test suite, issuing another last call (and
replying to comments). Expect more work on CT than MWABP, which
should just move forwards.
Mobile Web Application Best Practices
Jo: Don't see Adam here, so not sure we can do anything. Francois?
francois: I agree.
jo: postpone til next week then.
CT Guidelines
jo: Timetable says a new draft would be available today, but it
isn't. I don't think I'm going to be able to do that in the next
week, looking at my schedule.
... Eduardo, you expressed a non-lack-of-resistance to the idea of
doing some editing
... Will it be time-effective for me to hand that over to you, or
quicker for me to Just Do It?
... It's probably 3-4h work for me to do, 2h for me to hand over.
EdC: I have the same misgivings as you, but if you could start and
then run the risk of not completing, you could consider sending me
the document with an indication of what's missing and let me try to
do something with it.
jo: what's needed is to go through resolutions from the last f2f on
changes we agreed as last-call comments....
... you'll need to learn to edit in XMLSpec which is a wonderful
invention by the W3C. It's not hard, not not trivial either.
... I'll try and do this in the next 2 weeks, and if I can't, I'll
call on you.
EdC: That's fine. We should clear up the late comments...
jo: moving onto comments...
<jo> [12]further LC comments
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2010JanMar/0000.html
<francois> [13]Some comments on the comments from fd
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0001.html
jo: francois has already answered these for us ;)
<francois> [14]LC-2358
[14]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2358
<jo> "Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies"
jo: As Francois has pointed out, we've already discussed title
changes and decided that we can't be clear we are talking about
mobile here.
francois: Yes. We tried many titles, none of which were fantastic.
It's not the first time that people have read the spec and expected
something broader...
... most of the guidelines are about transformation for mobile
delivery, so it might make sense to update the title.
... I have no strong opinion on this.
... There's just One Web, right?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2358 resolve no, we
understand the point but have debated this at length previously and
this is the best title we could think of
+1
<francois> +1
seanp: I have trouble rememberign the current title, if it gets
longer no-one will be able to remember or say it.
francois: then we can get an acronym!
<SeanP> +1
<jo> +1
<EdC> I believe the introduction makes things clear.
<EdC> +1
jo: objections?
RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2358 resolve no, we understand the
point but have debated this at length previously and this is the
best title we could think of
jo: next up is LC-2359
<francois> [15]LC-2359
[15]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2359
tom: this is something we've spoken about before - HTTP signalling
different sorts of transformations on and off is a limitation we
have noted but can't do anything about here.
jo: I agree partially, we can amplify the note that already exists
here (around WAP gateways not working).
... objections?
<DKA> Apologies to all for arriving late for our first call of the
new year.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2359, resolve partial. We
agree that it is heavy handed but it is the only mechanism provided
by RFC 2616. We will amplify the note regarding possible damaging
effects of using it - at present this notes that WAP gateways may
mis-operate in its presence
+1
<jo> +1
<francois> +1
<DKA> +1
<SeanP> +1
<miguel> +1
<brucel> concur
objections?
RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2359, resolve partial. We agree that it
is heavy handed but it is the only mechanism provided by RFC 2616.
We will amplify the note regarding possible damaging effects of
using it - at present this notes that WAP gateways may mis-operate
in its presence
<francois> [16]LC-2360
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/2360
<EdC> That is again the issue of validation (SHOULD) and
well-formedness (MUST).
jo: this is about introducing ARIA attributes with accessibility. I
agree with Francois that this is a SHOULD, so no changes are
required.
<EdC> Yes.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2360, resolve no. The
document specifies a SHOULD for validation, so this should not be an
issue, we think
skype hang
back in the room...
<jo> +1
<SeanP> +1
<EdC> +1
<brucel> no objections
RESOLUTION: In respect of LC-2360, resolve no. The document
specifies a SHOULD for validation, so this should not be an issue,
we think
AOB
jo: anything else?
<brucel> hang loose and be groovy. Bye.
byeee
<DKA> ahoy
<SeanP> bye
<jo> thanks tomhume for scribing
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:17:33 UTC