- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:06:51 +0100
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-bpwg-minutes.html
... and pasted as text below.
In short:
- we resolved to publish the latest version the Mobile Web Application
Best Practices document as an updated draft.
- congratulations to the WCAG WG for the WCAG 2.0 Recommendation!
- no call next two weeks. Next call is on 8 January 2009.
- we've discussed the idea to merge CT calls with BPWG calls, which
sounds a good thing to do at this stage. I'll prepare a poll in order to
find the best solution logistic-wise to hold only one weekly call.
Francois.
-----
18 Dec 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Dec/0017.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
DKA, Francois, yeliz, achuter, dom
Regrets
abel, jeffs, jo, kai, manrique, miguel, rob, sangwhan
Chair
DKA
Scribe
DKA
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]MWABP
2. [6]WCAG 2.0
3. [7]Next call
4. [8]Merging CT calls and BPWG calls
5. [9]Relationship of Mobile to Acc document
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
MWABP
PROPOSE RESOLUTION: Request publication of a new draft of MWABP -
the latest draft from Adam - today (prior to pub moriatorium).
Dan: Francois, your thoughts?
Francois: Yes I agree we should publish a new version. On SVG
section some concerns but there is an editorial note so maybe not
such a big deal.
... One of the SVG BPs is use svgt 1.1 - and that's restrictive time
- so this is like defining an ADC.
... And the other BPs are applied to SVG...
Dan: I agree more work needs to be done but on balance I think worth
releasing a new draft now.
... Also - a lot of the issues that we've discussed with Adam have
been addressed...
... Jo was also supportive of publication - though he had a lot of
editorial comments that he planned to make.
Yeliz: I had some comments on the previous version but adam
addressed all of them already.
Francois: Did Jo plan to send comments before publication?
Dan: He thought it could wait.
... Any thoughts from Dom?
PROPOSE RESOLUTION: Request publication of a new draft of MWABP -
the latest draft from Adam - today (prior to pub moriatorium).
+1
<yeliz> +1
<dom> +1
<francois> +1
<dom> [dom is so happy]
<dom> [and that's not related at all to him being on vacation in one
hour]
RESOLUTION: Request publication of a new draft of MWABP - the latest
draft from Adam - today (prior to pub moriatorium).
WCAG 2.0
<achuter> Now that WCAG 2.0 is published, the WG should review the
relationship document
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Congratulations to WCAG working group for
publication of WCAG 2.0 as a Recommendation!
<francois> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: Congratulations to WCAG working group for publication of
WCAG 2.0 as a Recommendation!
<dom> [and there was much rejoicing]
Next call
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: no main working group calls until 8 Jan.
<dom> +1
<francois> +1
+1
<achuter> +1
<yeliz> +1
RESOLUTION: no main working group calls until 8 Jan.
Merging CT calls and BPWG calls
Dan: When is the next CT call?
Francois: 6 jan - propose to still hold it and then move the work to
the main body of the wg after that.
... Dan suggested that we bring the CT task force back to he main
body of the working group.
... So that we can consolidate the brains (to also work on MWABP)
and so the main body of the working group can help the CT taskforce
solve its remaining issues.
Dom: So just 1 call?
Francois: Yes.
Dom: the only problem I could see is that it reduces the bandwidth
on that document...
<dom> "close to be done" - famous last words
Francois: We are close to being done on CT tf...
:)
Francois: We created an issue on tuesday specifically because we
wanted the advice of the working group as a whole - on links
rewriting.
Dom: Let's give it a try.
[discussion of call times]
<dom> (also, we have two invited experts that participate
specifically to the TF - we would need to see if they can join the
new time)
Dom: Moving the call earlier could be problematic because we have
another call at this time [2:00 UK on Thursday].
Dan: Another option would be to just do the tuesday call...
... We need to put these options into a poll.
... We should make the combination of ct and bp-main the basis of
the poll.
Francois: OK - I will create a poll on this.
Dom: Yes - we should plan to meet at the same time and date at least
for the 1st week of jan.
+1
Francois: 3 choices in the poll -- on thursday at the same time; on
thursday 1 hr earlier; on tuesday at time of current ct call
Dan: Right.
Dom: One issue is that the CT call is scheduled for 60...
Dan: I think we need 90.
... We'll take a resolution on the call on the 8th of Jan as to what
to do with the meeting schedules.
Relationship of Mobile to Acc document
Francois: now that wcag 2.0 is published what's happening with
"relationship" document?
Yeliz: the plan was to publish it after wcag 2.0 becomes a rec. -
but not sure when that will happen.
Francois: At last f2f - Shawn mentioned that there was going to be a
poll prior to publication of "recommendation" - so will there be an
intermediary publication or will these documents have a final
publication.
Yeliz: My understanding was a final publication but not sure about
time plan.
... I will talk to Shawn.
Dan: I don't think it'll happen before moriatorium...
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 16:07:24 UTC