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

[minutes] Thursday 7 February Teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:47:49 +0100
Message-ID: <47AB2825.6050100@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:55 UTC