W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > April 2008

[minutes] Tursday 10 April 2008 Teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:46:58 +0200
Message-ID: <47FE3672.1090203@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org

Hi BPWG participants,

The minutes of today's call are available at:

... and copied as text below.

Main resolution: publish the latest draft of the Content Transformation 
Guidelines document as First Public Working Draft.


10 Apr 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0032.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-irc


           Abel, AlanC, chaals, DRooks, dom, EdM, francois, JeffS, jo,
           kai, MartinJ, DKA, nacho, srowen, Yeliz

           AdamC, PhilA, Shahriar, bryan, hgerlach, magnus, murari, rob




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Content Transformation TF
          2. [6]Status update
          3. [7]BP2
          4. [8]Accessibility document
          5. [9]BP2 second editor
          6. [10]Other Business
      * [11]Summary of Action Items

Content Transformation TF

Status update

    <dom> [12]CT guidelines latest editors version


    DKA: I think the draft is ready for FPWD...

    <jo> [13]CT guidelines latest editors version


    FD: CT task force agreed that they wanted to go to FPWD, so we are
    requesting formal approval from the group. Someone sent some
    comments this morning but not blocking publication.

    <dom> [I applaud the CT task force for the quality of the CT
    guidelines; really good document for a FPWD IMO]

    FD: Note that the document doesn't confine itself to mobile
    specifically. It recognises that Content Transformation happens, and
    scopes itself to web browsing.
    ... section 2 describes proxy types based on HTTP RFC - the document
    is about non-transparent proxies.
    ... We talk about different kinds of transformation and what needs
    to happen.
    ... E.g. compression, markup change, splitting page, etc.
    ... Requirements section needs to be reworked (at least 3.1 and 3.2
    be merged and rewritten).
    ... There needs to be: Control by user (view original content, find
    out what's happening, maybe set preferences as well)
    ... Server control - origin servers must be able to enable/disable
    ... and Other Things outside the scope of this document. E.g.
    disallow lists managed by CT proxies based on out-of-band

    <dom> [14]Publication moratorium starts next week, last pub request
    on April 15 (Tuesday)

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007OctDec/0102.html

    FD: (more detailed tour of the document)

    <jo> ACTION: jo to raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that
    HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP
    links [recorded in

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-732 - Raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft
    1j noting that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links
    and not HTTP links [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-17].

    FD: We will be looking for feedback from teh public and the WG at
    large to improve this...

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Publish Draft 1j of the CT Guidelines as a

    <dom> +1

    <DKA> +1

    <nacho> +1

    <jeffs> +1

    <srowen> +1

    DKA: Concerned about all the editorial comments...

    <achuter> +1

    <yeliz> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    FD: We made a print stylesheet so if you kill a tree the document
    looks better...

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to talk about the editorial comments

    JR: There are a lot of editorial comments. Think it is good to
    expose our thinking at this point, and I hope we resolve these soon
    but I think it is helpful to show the ideas in the meantime.

    <dom> [I think it's absolutely fine to go to FPWD with the editorial

    [+1 for the proposed resolution]

    RESOLUTION: Publish the Content Transformation draft as a First
    Public Working Draft

    <Martin1> +1

    JR: This is to reflect the thought that we need to actively promote
    the work of the group.

    <dom> DKA: I think we need to do outreach about this document, esp.
    given the current climate around content transformation

    <dom> DKA: the CT task force, under Jo's proposition, is suggesting
    we should organize an outreach event on CT, maybe around our Sophia

    JR: It would be nice to have an event where people come and say how
    lovely this is.

    DKA: .mobi will promote it, we can do the same. I think everyone
    involved needs to sign up for promoting this.

    [process-wise I don't think there is a requirement that we support
    what a task force presents...]

    <DKA> +1

    (discussion about how to promote this further - press releases,
    putting on pages, blogging, etc)

    <dom> [I think it's too early for a Press Release; the document WILL
    be announced on the W3c home page]

    JR: Who on the call would attend a meeting to promote this

    <achuter> +1

    JR: Sophia Antipolis is "not the most central and easily accessible
    place to hold a promotion event" (paraphrasing)
    ... maybe London, Frankfurt or somewhere would be better. But we
    need to feel that people's organisations would be interested in
    being there.

    FD: We have half a day or so spare in Sophia Antipolis that we could
    use, independent of other things

    AC: POWDER organised an event at GSMA - might be a good model

    FD: Agree

    CMN: I am feeling like the Task Force is a bit premature in
    promoting this, given that it has had WG support for a rough draft
    for half an hour... although it does make sense to plan.

    JR: I owuld like to think that we are planning with a reasonable
    advance to ensure that when we have something like a last call we
    are ready to do stuff.
    ... waiting until this is in the middle of CR before we think about
    promoting it will cause us not to do so well.

    <srowen> +2

    JR: this WD is late on our schedule, but it seems time to plan for
    promoting the work in a timely way.

    <srowen> (i am an unbiased third party)

    <srowen> (... but I still have no idea what the suspicion or
    controversy is. it's already getting late as the timely discussion
    of this in the community is already passing)

    JR: What support is there in the group for people turning up and
    having their organisation say "we support this work" within the

    <DKA> +1

    <jeffs> +1

    <Martin1> +1

    <srowen> (Will speak for Aaron in saying yes)

    <Kai> Maybe

    [unless we decide later that we hate this, we are likely to be

    <jo> +1

    <SeanP> +1

    <achuter> Maybe

    <edm> maybe

    <francois> +1

    <nacho> maybe too

    <yeliz> maybe

    <dom> [16]Latest BP2 draft



    DKA: We have a number of comments in and some responses
    ... it will be difficult to discuss this with Bryan :(

    JR: Having just had the group agree to make a FPWD, it seems that
    there is potentially less consensus about the readiness of BP2 for

    <dom> [I agree on Jo's view about not being quite at consensus yet]

    <srowen> (Bryan asked that we not take a resolution one way or the
    other on proceeding today, in his absence.)

    JR: think we are heading in the right direction but the document
    should be clearer about noting the areas that are currently under

    DKA: Are there resolutions we can take?

    <srowen> (I personally am OK with a public draft that clearly marks
    a few areas as 'under discussion')

    <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest that we postpone a week even
    if just to get continuous news

    No resolution today.

Accessibility document

    AC: We have been looking at this for a while
    ... the mapping from BP to WCAG goes one way, the mapping the other
    way works differently.



    AC: it seems better to make the flow follow the task and structure
    around the WCAG for someone who has done BP and wants to know what
    they still need to do for WCAG rather than being led through BP

    <jo> [PROPOSED RESOLUTION: (To be taken next week) Proceed with new
    structure of Accessibility doc]

    <jo> [All to be prepared to answer this in an informed way next

    <jeffs> brb

    <dom> DKA: shouldn't this be done as part of a primer rather than
    directly in this document?

    <dom> [I don't see a benefit from building yet another document;
    this sounds like it should be the primer itself]

    <yeliz> +q



    YY: There is a summary at the top of the document linked above
    saying which are the BPs you need to do still (or not)
    ... I think it is good to keep these documents short and have the
    summaries. I think it would be a good idea to have a seperate
    document that goes through best practices in detail showing how they
    relate to accessibility guidelines

    <scribe> ACTION: Yeliz to restructure a couple of BPs to illustrate
    her point [recorded in

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-733 - Restructure a couple of BPs to
    illustrate her point [on Yeliz Yesilada - due 2008-04-17].

    DKA: I wasn't talking about the exhaustive document. I am talking
    about a simple thing that says "you are here, this is what you need
    to add to get there"

    <achuter> [20]http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/

      [20] http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/

    AC: We are just talking about a new way of structuring the existing
    document to make it easier to use.
    ... pasted a link to a very short summary document which may be what
    DKA was wanting.



    <DKA> Alan: review structure of the document, specifically whether
    2nd half of the document should be removed.

    DKA: Think we should review this document first

    <DKA> Alan: (specifically "Individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria

    JR: Think we should plan some proposed resolutions to guide people
    where to look, so we can take advantage of the great work Alan has

    <achuter> Please look through the section of the document pointed to
    by URL above and decide whether it is really useful and if not ,
    could be removed

    DKA: Makes sense.
    ... so for the agenda for next week, let's look at having a
    resolution on the question of whether to remove the section


    <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION (for next week): agree on the
    restructuring of the wcag-mwbp

    AC: I think we could go ahead, and the material is still around if
    we make the changes back again.

    JR: I don't want the group to keep giving you guys the runaround -
    we should have informed and clear guidance for you.


      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0040.html


      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0042.html

    DKA: You are asking Shawn these questions?

    AC: They are questions addressed in the document, not things that we
    need to answer seperately.

    <dom> ACTION: Alan to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
    approve [recorded in

    <trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) -

    <trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name
    or username (eg. achuter, atai)

    <dom> ACTION: achuter to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
    approve [recorded in

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-734 - Prepare a set of resolutions for
    BPWG to approve [on Alan Chuter - due 2008-04-17].

    JR: Suggest Alan give us a list of proposed resolutions, with
    pointers to the things we need to understand to make intelligent
    decisions on the draft.

BP2 second editor

    DHM: I have heard a few people wondering about moving BP2 to FPWD,
    and I think the best thing we could do would be to provide Bryan
    with a co-editor if we have someone available...
    ... so if anyone is wondering, please please step up

    <DKA> +1

    DHM: may be text editing, or creating issues and following tracker
    etc, ...

Other Business

    JR: The resumed "mobile OK Trustmark Scheme draft thingo" has now
    been posted for people to consider...

    <edm> bye

    <nacho> bye



Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: achuter to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
    approve [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Alan to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to
    approve [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: jo to raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that
    HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP
    links [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Yeliz to restructure a couple of BPs to illustrate her
    point [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 15:44:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC