- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:35:51 +0100
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
The group resolved to request transition of Mobile Web Application Best
Practices to Candidate Recommendation, and agreed on exit criteria
similar to those of Best Practices 1.0 and a CR phase of two months.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
19 Jan 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jan/0011.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
miguel, DKA, tomhume, adam, francois, EdC, jo, jey, achuter,
SeanP
Regrets
kai, brucel, nacho, jeffs, sangwhan, yeliz
Chair
DKA
Scribe
francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]MWABP - status
2. [6]MWABP - Exit Criteria for Candidate Recommendation
3. [7]MWABP - Transition to Candidate Recommendation
4. [8]CT guidelines
5. [9]New Group Member - Jérôme
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
MWABP - status
<adam>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
D-mobile-bp2-20100114
[11]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20100114
adam: there was one comment from chaals, but I think he just misread
the changes I had made to the document.
... The latest draft is really just a list of typos.
... I don't think we need to change anything on response to chaals'
comments, really.
dka: do we need to treat this as official comments?
adam: I don't think so. They were editorial comments.
dka: so we're done!
... Any other comments?
<EdC> Question -- has anybody performed a general check of
consistency for all internal document links?
francois: nothing really to add. Just note that we have placeholders
for icons we never put in the draft.
dka: right. Do you think we can publish the document and tackle that
later on without problems? This is purely editorial, right?
francois: right. I don't think we'll have any problem with that.
adam: Some comments of Alan might need to be addressed.
MWABP - Exit Criteria for Candidate Recommendation
dka: I don't think that should block us. We should go on with the
publication.
... About exit criteria, as I recall, we decided at the F2F that we
would be using similar criteria to those we used for BP1.
... This would be based on voluntary implementation reports.
... Is that correct?
adam: I think that's correct.
-> [12]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/ CR of mobile
web best practices 1.0
[12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#status
Status of this document section in the CR of BP1 that contains the
exit criteria
[13] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#status
[[ The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group expects to request
that the Director advance this document to Proposed Recommendation
once:
1. Sufficient reports of implementation experience have been
gathered to demonstrate that the Mobile Web Best Practices are
implementable and are interpreted in a consistent manner. To test
this, the Working Groups expects to evaluate web content (web sites,
pages) that has been created using the Mobile Web Best Practices. To
exit "Candidate Recommendation" for each Best Practice, at least two
web sites/pages which are not solely demonstrations of Best
Practices implementation should pass the Best Practice.
2. An implementation report has been produced indicating the results
of using each best practices for the web sites/pages considered
]]
dka: [ reading exit criteria from BP1 ]
<DKA> [14]http://www.w3.org/2006/06/mwbp-implementation-report
[14] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/mwbp-implementation-report
dka: I suggest we basically duplicate this for MWABP. Does anyone
see any problem with that approach?
... From an architectural perpective, this seems correct.
<DKA> :)
<jo> [2 implementation reports for each BP should be sufficient]
adam: This is fine with the understanding that the resulting
implementation report will be less "green" than the one for BP1. Web
sites won't implement all of the best practices, only a restricted
set of them in their Mobile Web application.
francois: nothing to add. I agree with the approach.
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to ask about NOTs
<EdC> ...especially since every possible combination of best
practices might not make sense.
francois: 2 implementation reports for each BP should be sufficient,
no need to implement all of the BPs.
jo: The only slight problem might have to do with negative best
practices. If we have something with "don't in any case do this",
then we could have a problem with some Web applications.
<DKA> e.g. "Do not Execute Unescaped or Untrusted JSON data"
adam: I don't think we have such strong wording.
dka: hmm, what about the one on JSON?
... We may need to amend the bullet point, then.
francois: a bit at a loss about the problem with NOT
dka: we did not have negative BPs in BP1.
francois: we had, actually. Do not use frames, pop-ups. Avoid
cookies.
dka: right.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will use the same exit criteria we
used for MWBP 1.0 for our CR of MWABP.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will use the same exit criteria we
used for our CR of MWBP 1.0 for our CR of MWABP.
<DKA> +1
<tomhume> +1
+1
<miguel> +1
<achuter> +1
<adam> +1
<jey> +1
RESOLUTION: We will use the same exit criteria we used for our CR of
MWBP 1.0 for our CR of MWABP.
dka: about the implementation report, francois?
francois: I'll do it, yes.
<scribe> ACTION: daoust to prepare the implementation report for the
CR of MWABP [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1036 - Prepare the implementation report
for the CR of MWABP [on François Daoust - due 2010-01-26].
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to suggest that we poll for who is going to
do an implementation report
jo: I don't think that implementation reports are going to "fly in".
We'll have to chase them. We should track people and ensure they
provide implementation reports.
adam: true. I can think of a couple of applications within Google,
but that's not enough.
jo: Right. What about Vodafone or Betavine
dka: let's make a WBS report.
... We just need to understand what the implementation report will
look like.
... Coming back to the question of time frame, any thoughts on time
frame.
<EdC> What is the experience from BP1?
<jo> iirc was a month or two
[I think the minimum is 6 weeks, but 2 months is a reasonable
target, yes]
dka: shall we do 2 months?
adam: sounds good.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: 2 months of CR for MWABP
<DKA> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: 2 months of CR for MWABP
MWABP - Transition to Candidate Recommendation
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group resolves to request transition
to CR of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices (editor's draft
dated 14 Jan 2010).
+1
<EdC> +1
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to suggest that the latest draft has been
available for less than a week so we need to let folks (including
me) have a chance to read it
jo: I do not want to hold this up by any mean. However, we had only
two working days to review the latest draft.
... so we should give people time to review the draft.
francois: right. I wouldn't call the latest draft a new draft, as it
only contains a tiny list of typos compared to the previous one.
... People should have reviewed the draft before.
... but I think we could reformulate the proposed resolution as jo
mentioned.
dka: I don't think that holding up this for one more week will do
any good.
... Let's move forward.
jo: If enough people have reviewed the spec, then I'm fine with it.
... I'll rephrase that as a question
<jo> my sentiment is as francois minuted namely : If enough people
have reviewed the spec, then I'm fine with it.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group resolves to request transition
to CR of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices (editor's draft
dated 14 Jan 2010).
<adam> +1
dka: ok, I don't see any good reason to hold this up some more.
<DKA> +1
+1
<achuter> +1
<EdC> +1
<jey> +1
<jo> +1
<tomhume> +1
<SeanP> +1
dka: awesome, let's do it!
RESOLUTION: The group resolves to request transition to CR of the
Mobile Web Application Best Practices (editor's draft dated 14 Jan
2010).
<jo> plaudits to the editor!
dka: anything else that we need to do, on top of congratulating the
editor, of course?
<jo> ack
CT Guidelines
francois: just so that people are not surprised, please note that
the actual transition is likely to require a transition call. It
won't be done tomorrow.
<DKA> +1
<tomhume> :)
jo: last week, we said that I'd be given 2 weeks to update the CT
draft. Well, I failed last week, but still plan to do it this week.
... but we had a lovely time in Brighton yesterday evening.
dka: I think it's on scope because it was about sustainability, and
that included a comparison between a Web app and a native app.
... in terms of power consumption.
... Anyway, any other business?
New Group Member - Jérôme
jo: One thing, Dan. We have failed to introduce Jérôme, and we have
been a little bit rude here, in short. It is traditional to let new
participants of the group introduce themselves.
<jo> welcome Jérôme!
<EdC> Are you joining just this group (whose life-time is limited)
or also some other W3C activities?
jey: I'm part of France Telecom. I'm a developer, doing Web
developments. What we're trying to do is to do some outreach
internally about possibilities Web applications introduce.
... I'm excited to join this group, although I realize I'm a bit
late.
dka: never too late to join the group! Welcome to this group.
<jo> [16]The Green Switch, subject of last night's MobileMonday
London
[16] http://www.thegreenswitch.org/
dka: I'll be happy to talk with you, especially for outreach
activities.
... no other business?
... Then I declare the call closed!
[call adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to prepare the implementation report for the CR
of MWABP [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 15:36:19 UTC