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

[minutes] Thursday 24 April 2008 Teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:29:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4810A76C.7070006@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org

Hi,

The minutes of today's agenda are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as naked text below.


Agreed resolutions:
- Request amendment to Charter if necessary to make the Guidelines Rec 
Track / Normative
- Ref DOCTYPE checking in mobileOK Basic, adopt the proposal in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html
and check against doctypes of basic 1.0/1 and MP 1.0/2
- BP2 should not include How to test it sections

New actions:
see the end of the email


François.


24 Apr 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0084.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           hgerlach, francois, jo, adam, manrique, miguel,
           Bryan_Sullivan, SeanP, achuter, abel

    Regrets
           EdM, Magnus, MartinJ, Shahriar, Murari, Yeliz, Seungyun,
           drooks, AlanTai

    Chair
           jo

    Scribe
           adam

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Checker Taskforce
          2. [6]Content Transformation
          3. [7]mobileOK Basic
          4. [8]Accessibility
          5. [9]BP2
          6. [10]AOB
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Checker Taskforce

    jo: sean has sadly left the group so we need a new leader.

    TF is near end of its lifetime but we should consider if we need a
    new leader.

    francois: new leader should be one of the active participants of
    checker TF

    jo: Prefer for Dom to take this on. We should ask him.

    <jo> ACTION: Daoust to ask Dom if he can become TF leader for
    Checker for last couple of weeks [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-743 - Ask Dom if he can become TF
    leader for Checker for last couple of weeks [on François Daoust -
    due 2008-05-01].

Content Transformation

    francois: Have only received one piece of feedback. Currently
    resolving editorial notes one by one.
    ... As discussed charter is for document to be informative and not
    normative... But in practice document makes more sense as a
    normative document.

    jo: we should take a resolution to request amendment of the charter.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request amendment to Charter if necessary
    to make the Guidelines Rec Track

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request amendment to Charter if necessary
    to make the Guidelines Rec Track / Normative

    <francois> +1

    +1

    <SeanP> +1

    RESOLUTION: Request amendment to Charter if necessary to make the
    Guidelines Rec Track / Normative

mobileOK Basic

    <jo> [13]Discussion on MobileOK Validation

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0068.html

    jo: Has been discussion on list about resolution to remove DTD
    validation.

    <jo> [14]Revised Proposal on treatment of DOCTYPEs

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html

    miguel: [ sorry, i can't hear you very well, miguel. ]

    jo: miguel believes that the doc looks okay and the known docs types
    basic1.0 -> basic1.1 and mp1.0 -> mp1.2 is okay.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref DOCTYPE checking, adopt the proposal
    in
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.htm
    l and check against doctypes of basic 1.0/1 and MP 1.0/2

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html

    <francois> +1

    <manrique> +1

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref DOCTYPE checking in mobileOK Basic,
    adopt the proposal in
    [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.htm
    l and check against doctypes of basic 1.0/1 and MP 1.0/2

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html

    RESOLUTION: Ref DOCTYPE checking in mobileOK Basic, adopt the
    proposal in
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.htm
    l and check against doctypes of basic 1.0/1 and MP 1.0/2

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0072.html

Accessibility

    jo: update on ACTION-734 progress, please.
    ... Currently unable to hear Alan so we will come back.

    francois: Wondering about resolution to leave whitespace in css
    since we are moving back to last call. It is already in checker.

    jo: Relatively small quorum to make that call. Lets raise it on the
    list.

BP2

    jo: ISSUE-245, the discussion about recreating the ADC.
    ... Kai highlighted some useful thoughts on this. Personally I feel
    that ADC is non-starter. Categorization of devices from an
    application perspective takes its place.

    bryan: Overall, not so happy about setting targets for functionality
    since it narrows scope of discussion unnecessarily.

    <francois> +1 to bryan and jo, same arguments...

    achuter: Agrees that it's not a very good idea unless it's actually
    needed to make sense.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ISSUE-245 ADC goes back in coffin and
    close ISSUE-245

    <achuter> +1

    <Bryan> +1

    francois: We should probably wait for Kai to join the call before
    taking the resolution.

    jo: agreed.
    ... One additional point that was raised in discussion was that BP2
    should make some reference to adaptation.

    bryan: Not sure. BP2 addresses direct intent to create contact
    services that are mobile friendly.

    jo: By adaptation I mean the server creating different views
    depending on device type.

    <jo> ACTION: Bryan to create a placeholder capturing discussion
    under ISSUE-245 on the need for adaptation (not transformation) to
    realise BP-2 [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-744 - Create a placeholder capturing
    discussion under ISSUE-245 on the need for adaptation (not
    transformation) to realise BP-2 [on Bryan Sullivan - due
    2008-05-01].

    ISSUE-246, and earlier thread on naming.

    <jo> [19]thread on naming

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0016.html

    jo: ISSUE-246, and earlier thread on naming.

    <jo> [20]ISSUE-246

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/246

    achuter: The name BP2 is ambiguous. BP2 implies an update to BP1.

    jo: It is call "Mobile Web Applications Best Practices" we should be
    more consistent in using this name.

    achuter: Yes, that name makes more sense.

    jo: Bryan, is there scope to add some further explanation on
    relationship with BP1 ?

    bryan: Can beef this up some more. Do we need to go so far as a
    table of references?

    jo: No. Relevance is that BP1 applies when you don't know
    capabilities of device. BP2 is about exploiting device capabilities.
    ... I can suggest the relevant text.

    <jo> ACTION: Jo to contribute text about relationship between BP1
    and BP2 [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-745 - Contribute text about
    relationship between BP1 and BP2 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-05-01].

    <jo> [and close ISSUE-246]

    jo: Next up, deer in headlights conversation :)

    bryan: There have been a substantial number of updates in response
    to comments. Some points still need discussion before I make further
    changes.
    ... Section on "One Web" could use some further input. Regarding
    Section 5, constraints, we need to give more thought to this too.
    ... Some sections have been removed as requested.
    ... Have added some text to non-browser web-runtime environment.
    Further input on this would be helpful.

    <jo> ACTION: Bryan to start a discussion on list about what
    constitutes non-browser web runtime and example application
    [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-746 - Start a discussion on list about
    what constitutes non-browser web runtime and example application [on
    Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-05-01].

    adam: haven't managed to read latest version of document yet, sorry.
    some concerns on what constitutes a non-browser web-runtime and that
    it is not possible to make statements that are equally applicable to
    browser web-application and non-browser web-applications.

    bryan / adam: [ some further discussion ]

    jo: Suggest that we start an email thread on examples of non-browser
    web-runtimes.
    ... Hope that we will be ready for FPWD on next call if we can
    clarify these remaining points.

    francois: Agreed.

    jo: Lets try to get this resolved by next week provided that works
    for Bryan.

    bryan: That works for me so long as we can get past the fundamental
    questions of scope.
    ... Two other things causing debate: 1) What is mobile specific, how
    does that goal guide us?
    ... 2) What is web? And what is mobile web? Is mobile web in some
    cases larger than mobile web?
    ... e.g. Push technology ?
    ... Want us to settle those two questions.

    jo: We should raise these as issues so we can iron them out.

    <jo> ACTION: Bryan to raise ISSUE(s) on what's mobile specific and
    What's Mobile Web [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-747 - Raise ISSUE(s) on what's mobile
    specific and What's Mobile Web [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-05-01].

    jo: Wanted to raise issue regarding "how to test it" sections. BP1
    "how to test it" didn't work well. Suggest dropping the how to test
    it section.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BP2 should not include How to test it
    sections

    <achuter> +1

    <jo> +1

    adam: agree. "tests" aren't necessarily the correct formulation for
    the kinds of things we are trying to express.

    +1

    achuter: Then there should be a clarification in the document on
    this. So it is clear it will not be possible to make your site BP2
    compliant.

    <hgerlach> sorry I have to leave for a next call

    RESOLUTION: BP2 should not include How to test it sections

    <achuter> If BPs are not testable, it will not be possible for
    people to require compliance

    <jo> ACTION: daoust to check what we need to do about a conformance
    section in BP2 [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-748 - Check what we need to do about a
    conformance section in BP2 [on François Daoust - due 2008-05-01].

    jo: And another thing... Document is about exploiting capabilities.
    So document should contain structure: This is capability, this is
    how to exploit it, this is what to do if it's not there.

    adam: Concerned that if doc is only about this, and this is baked
    into the doc structure, will there be enough to say. Can we
    enumerate device capabilities we are going to talk about.

    jo: Concerned that we might be heading down a slightly vague route
    akin to BP1.

    bryan: Agree on point about BP1 = a bag of topics related to mobile
    context. If we turn it around to "these are mobile specific" here's
    how you exploit them doc may be clearer but we will lose something.

    jo: Lets see how discussion proceeds next week and come back to
    this.

AOB

    <manrique> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to create a placeholder capturing discussion
    under ISSUE-245 on the need for adaptation (not transformation) to
    realise BP-2 [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to raise ISSUE(s) on what's mobile specific and
    What's Mobile Web [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to start a discussion on list about what
    constitutes non-browser web runtime and example application
    [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Daoust to ask Dom if he can become TF leader for
    Checker for last couple of weeks [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to check what we need to do about a conformance
    section in BP2 [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jo to contribute text about relationship between BP1
    and BP2 [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 15:30:23 UTC

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