- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:29:48 +0200
- 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