- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:47:49 +0100
- To: public-bpwg@w3.org
The minutes of today's meetings are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
François.
07 Feb 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Feb/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
miguel, Dom, francois, Bryan_Sullivan, Magnus, Shahriar,
adam, jo, yeliz, Jason, Emmanuel, kemp, Sean_Owen, SeanP,
drooks
Regrets
Kai, MartinJ, achuter, RobFinean, chaals, hgerlach, Abel,
nacho, Murari, PhilA
Chair
Jo
Scribe
kemp
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Introducing Emmanuel
2. [6]mobileOK Object Tasting Experiment
3. [7]Task force updates
4. [8]Mobile OK Checker
5. [9]mobileOK Pro
6. [10]Mobile / Accessibility
7. [11]BP 2
8. [12]AOB
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Introducing Emmanuel
mobileOK Object Tasting Experiment
jo: next up, object tasting
<dom> [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results
<dom> dom: based on these results, I think we should only count
objects when the type attribute is not set
jo: ok anything else on object tasting?
Task force updates
jo: francois ,thanks for your update...
francois: i think we are at the point in the CT task force where we
have some deadlines and we need to move from a wishlist to something
practical
... i sent a long email, and there isn't a call next week, so lets
discuss the email on the list.
<dom> [15]francois' mail on moving forward in the CT TF
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Feb/0041.html
francois: and get something practical into the guidelines so we can
move forward
jo: i agree, i think the time has come to press forward
... any other TF members want to comment?
Magnus: yes I am still digesting your email francois, but i have a
comment about the content transformation being an extension of the
browser.
... this is up for dispute. there are other situations, like when a
mobile operator adds a proxy under contract
Bryan: there are a number of value added services CTs provide that
are already deployed. within the scope of the guidelines, the
objectives are interoperability etc
... however other things may override these objectives (contractual
obligations for example) but are outside the scope
<dom> [a contract between an operator and a user does imply that the
user gave his consent, doesn't it?]
kemp: there are both types of use cases, though, sometimes it really
is an extension of the browser, sometimes it is a proxy under
contract, etc.
Magnus: i just wanted to make it clear that there are times it is
not a valid assumption that the user is in ultimate control
jo: ok i think we shouldn't continue on this in this call. but it
seems like the majority (except for me) sees it much the same way.
... that is, that the transforming gateway can be considered part of
the user's equipment.
... so we may want to progress using that view, and explicitly state
it. francois?
francois: i think you are right, we should continue the discussion
on the mailing list.
jo: ok, anything else on content transformation?
Mobile OK Checker
<dom> [I say, let's do it today]
srowen: i think we might finally be in a position to put out a
release
... i haven't heard any objections to my email. no other particular
news.
jo: i have one question about the additional ??? tests
srowen: yes it seems people wanted these tests.
jo: ok so it seems we should update mobileOK with these tests
s/\?\?\?/pseudo/
<dom> [I don't think it needs to be added to mobileOK]
srowen: i didn't think that this pseudo-test needed to be added to
mobileOK
jo: ok but my concern was that if we don't say something about
failing, you can't fail.
srowen: ok well we should chat on list
mobileOK Pro
jo: i will try to summarize since we can't hear
<dom> [16]Kai's report of mobileOK Pro TF F2F
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Feb/0001.html
jo: it seems, in summary, that a substantial amount of progress has
been made, and that the group may be able to produce things - last
call in June
adam: i was there, too
... i don't think i have a lot to add. we went through all the
tests, divided them up and gave two weeks to work on them and get
back to the group.
... we made notes on the tests about subjectivity issues and open
questions around each of them.
... so presenting back to the group in two weeks is the plan
jo: ok anything further on mobileOK pro?
Mobile / Accessibility
jo: plan was to review the document, starting where we left off, but
since Alan isn't here, it's not practical to do this.
... deferred to next week
BP 2
Bryan_Sullivan: i did finally get it uploaded.
<Bryan_Sullivan>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
D-mobile-bp2-20080206/
[17]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080206/
<dom> [18]Bryan's updated draft of BP2 (member-only)
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Feb/att-0012/Mobile_Web_Best_Practices_2_0_080206.htm
Bryan_Sullivan: i'd appreciate some guidance on where to put
things/name them etc.
... the updates i have made are around areas that i am particularly
interested in and areas that are important to us as service
providers.
... As you'll notice, I establish some criteria for the sort of
things we include in BP 2.
<dom> [19]Diff since previous version
[19]
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FMember%2Fmember-bpwg%2F2008Jan%2Fatt-0003%2FMobile_Web_Best_Practices_2_0.htm&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080206%2F
Bryan_Sullivan: Things like it needs to be essential to the mobile
experience and that it is testable.
... I have put some content in around specific topics we feel are
particularly important.
... To summarize, personalization, security/privacy, user awareness
and control, and cookies and redirection.
... I also added some content around "conservative use of network
traffic".
... So I'd like some feedback on the intended outcome of the
document.
jo: questions about the draft? particularly on the criteria for
inclusion?
... ok nothing, moving on.
AOB
dom: i just wanted to ask if there is a meeting next week, given
that many will be in Barcelona
<dom> (regrets from me next week)
<Bryan_Sullivan> +1
jo: ok straw poll, who is going to be here next week?
+1
<francois> (regrets from me for next week)
<Emmanuel> +1
<adam> +1
<miguel> +1
<yeliz> +1
<Jason> +1
<SeanP> Regrets for next week
jo: ok it seems like a significant number will be available, and
alan said he would be back, so i think we should meet.
... ok we will continue as normal next week
... any other business?
... ok thanks everyone
<miguel> bye
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 15:48:05 UTC