W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > March 2007

[minutes] Checker meeting of 19th May 2007

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:23:50 -0400
Message-ID: <815E07C915F39742A29E5587B3A7FA192A4E5C67@lk0-cs0.int.link2exchange.com>
To: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

Please find a record of this meeting as text below and (member only) at


Jo Rabin
mTLD (http://dotmobi.mobi)

19 Mar 2007


See also: IRC log

    Sean, Abel, Miguel, Jo, Nacho


    * Topics
         1. Possible F2F in Dublin April 2 and 3
         2. Intermediate doc and its format
         3. Code
         4. Requirements
         5. F2F (bis)
         6. Requirements (bis)
         7. next meeting
    * Summary of Action Items



Topic: Possible F2F in Dublin April 2 and 3

sean: who can come?

jo: Me, you, Dom, probably, Shadi.
... roland said he couldn't make it

abel: noone can attend from Spain

jo: if we changed date?

abel: no

jo: would like to make it possible for people from spain to attend
... would it work better in Spain?

abel: we'd have to talk with Nacho about the possibility
... he's not here right now but should be here soon

sean: should we change date then?

jo: if Dom and Shadi can be there then I think it would be worthwhile

sean: I'm less worried than I was about sticking to the original
deadlines, as there is stuff out there for the finalized draft of mOK
... but lets go ahead

jo: I'll try finalise by this time tomorrow

sean: let's try to involve people from spain by phone

Topic: Intermediate doc and its format

Sean: looks good to me, you guys seems to know what you want

<abel> yes, agreed with that

jo: think we need comments back from ERT group before finalising, and
think it would be easier to finalise F2F

Topic: Code

sean: Think we should probably take stock of requirements before
pressing ahead on this - where are we with requirements

jo: agree that writing code helps one to sharpen ones perceptions

sean: agree - will continue to protype

jo: shadi mentioned that he was interested in extensibility to be a
checker for WAI but I am concerned that it is a bit too broad for us

sean: yes, it would be good to meet their requirements but yes we need
to be sure that it's not too broad

Topic: Requirements

Sean: let's look at that thread and see which lingering points of
discussion remain
... bit worried about the tidying up issue
... is this lenient mode

jo: yes though worry about the term 'lenient' as the result is the same
whether or not you are in it
... anyway it's in tune with what the mobileOK doc says

sean: should we record issues

jo: yes but is it OK to use BP tracker for that as we are not chartered

Topic: F2F (bis)

[nacho joined]

sean: should we go ahead with Dublin?

nacho: we can host it here on a different date
... not on 2nd April

sean: so we will continue with tentative plans to meet in Dublin and
conference you in

jo: need to confirm with Dublin colleages and we should check that Dom
and Shadi can sill make it
... I'll do that by this time tomorrow

Topic: Requirements (bis)

Sean: back to tidying up the results
... just need to make it clear what is going on

jo: worrried about how the tidying is actually done
... think we should investigate TAG soup

sean: agree that this could just be part of the test results

jo: think that we don't need to fuss unduly about it if the doc fails
... then it fails, and maybe we just need to note on the other results
that this is based on TIDY and is not to be relied upon

sean: that seems OK to me

<abel> +1

<abel> ... to set actions

<scribe> ACTION: Jo to confirm dublin F2F [for checker] by tomorrow
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-453 - Confirm dublin F2F [for checker] by
tomorrow [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-03-26].

<scribe> ACTION: Sean to investigate TAG Soup [for checker] [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-454 - Investigate TAG Soup [for checker] [on
Sean Owen - due 2007-03-26].


sean: yes take a URI would be good and yes it would be useful to test a
doc locally

jo: think it implies a mode of saying don't test links, don't test http
... acouple of cases
... in one you need to specify a base to check linked docs

sean: I see it as being having the ability to supply headers and a base
if you want
... makes sense as an approach
... on 4.3 docuemntation
... yes there is both Java doc and overall architecture doc

jo: I think that working on architecture doc would not be premature at
this statge

<scribe> ACTION: Sean to start work on architectural documentation
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-455 - Start work on architectural
documentation [on Sean Owen - due 2007-03-26].

sean: should be helpful for people to do implementations in other
... on 4.4 but we do need to replace dom's initial version
... consensus seems to be that yes that is nice but should be considered

jo: think we should not burn effort to make a proper interface beyond
what is needed for testing

sean: 4.5.5 yes agree that the http headers should be recorded

jo: am worried that they don't really have consistent requirements for
what we are trying to do and are maybe burning energy when it could be
simpler if we have to add too much to it

sean: not that bothered about the RDF aspect

jo: well, the fact that there are two ways of specifying headers and
values ...
... makes it a bit inconvenient to use
... still not sure why they think this is useful and what is the use

<srowen> (apologize for dominating the discussion)

sean: think I agree - if we find more issues then think we should
revisit, it wouldn't be hard to reuse some of the stuff they have done
but make it more convenient to use

nacho: we should try to re-use existing technologies and extend it
... think it would be more work to do it otherwise

sean: let's use it as is and add something that adds both the normalised
and original form
... perhaps we should talk to Shadi about it

jo: I think that we should certainly output in HTTP-in-RDFbut whether we
should therefor use exactly the same representation is open to question

sean: if I found another reason that makes it incovenient then I'd be in
favour of dumping it
... but think we should persist for a while

jo: think that we should certainly makes sure we pay attention to their
hard work - but don't know that this is the whole answer

nacho: yes we should give it a shot, but if its too hard then reconsider

jo: I am coming round to the view that we should support it but not use
it for the primary representation
... because it may make it a lot harder for us to use it for our own

sean: lets continue this on list

nacho: can you do the architecture as a skeleton so we can contribute
... how about a table of contents to start?

sean: sure I'll due it that way and open it up, would appreciate the

Topic: next meeting

sean: next monday Im'm travelling and the monday after is april 2nd
... so next meeting will be then
... ok that's it!

Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to confirm dublin F2F [for checker] by tomorrow
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to investigate TAG Soup [for checker] [recorded in
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to start work on architectural documentation
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 16:24:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:18 UTC