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

[minutes] Thursday 03 July 2008 Teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:01:31 +0200
Message-ID: <486CF7DB.5070005@w3.org>
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/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html

... and pasted as text below.

Main points addressed:
- BP1.0: now or never as the doc is about to move to Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-1.0/BestPractices

- mobileOK Basic: breathe hard and review the proposed changes on 
objects processing and other amendments as proposed by Jo (an updated 
draft should follow shortly)

- actions: overdue actions are bad:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/overdue
Thanks for doing your homework!

- techniques wiki: to be buried "6 feet under".

Francois.



03 Jul 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0008.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Francois, Pontus, yeliz, achuter, dom, abel, Bryan_Sullivan,
           hgerlach, adam, Kai_Dietrich, SeanP, jsmanrique, jo

    Regrets
           murari, rob, EdM, nacho, dan

    Chair
           francois

    Scribe
           yeliz

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Accessibility document
          2. [6]mobile Web best practices 1.0
          3. [7]Mobile OK Basic tests
          4. [8]Progress corner
          5. [9]Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last
             Call WD
          6. [10]Issues and Actions
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Accessibility document

    <francois> [12]Updated draft of the doc

      [12] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080702/

    francois: updated document for publication

    <francois> [13]Shawn's comments

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jul/0002.html

    some comments made by Shawn which delayed the publication

    Alan: Shawn sent some comments that she doesn't mind

    <achuter>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
    rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080702/

      [14] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080702/

    Alan: correcting the names at the top of the document, Liam made CSS
    to make the navigation look better
    ... put the sub-heading with the overview to make it clearer to
    identfiy the document
    ... long list of BP that has not been checked which I don't remember
    the page they belong to
    ... so it's more complete
    ... there was a confusion about the together document so that now
    stayed in
    ... is there any reservation, please say so

    Francois: I think the document is fine
    ... trying to put the publication today and it might be delayed up
    until Monday

    but otherwise we are on track and thank you for updating

mobile Web best practices 1.0

    Francois: Jo published a new version

    but didn't publicise it

    <francois> [15]Updated BP 1.0 draft

      [15] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-1.0/BestPractices

    there are very few changes since proposed recommendation

    <francois> [16]diff file between PR and this draft

      [16] http://tinyurl.com/44t6qt

    Francois: there are few changes, those agreed
    ... suggest you all look at the document, there will no be
    resolution

    if you really have some points to make it's now or never

Mobile OK Basic tests

    Francois: two comments were made, one from me and one from Dom

    <francois> [17]first comment from Dom

      [17] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008AprJun/0004.html

    <francois> [18]second comment from fd

      [18] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008AprJun/0007.html

    Francois: send comments
    ... we won't be able to resolve today

    <francois> [19]Jo's proposals

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0013.html

    we can start to look at them though

    basically the problem is again with the object processing

    there is a bit inconsistency in the current document

    we say that the checker has to donwload the ...

    to check the object, regardless of the...

    so it's a bit inconsistent, we don't count the objects as if we
    don't retrieve the object

    it would be good

    if everyone can look at the proposal

    Jo: there are, as a result of the comments made by dom and Francois

    there are clarifications

    in the latest, I am proposing solution

    as Man. pointed out

    we don't check the absence of an object, in the case of a valid
    image

    we should clarify that we are planning to do that

    <francois> Ex: <object src="img.gif" type="image/gif" /> is
    currently valid, but there should be an alternative text, some
    fallback text

    if the object doesn't type attribute then we need to issue a worning

    According to Dom's tests

    some borwsers do

    scribe:

    I think it is worth maintaining the object processing

    it's worth worning that they will behave that way

    <francois> Ex: <object src="huge_img_of_several_MBs.png"
    type="image/png"> is retrieved by some user agents

    We say that if the type attribute is specified, then don't count in
    those resources

    the reason is that

    that thing won't be retrived

    that was missing in the last draft

    Mobile OK tests will change with this

    it won't effect the pass or fail

    overall result of the test will not change

    <dom> +1 to change being non-substantive

    we do need this to be right

    I am gooing ahead and change this unless there are comments

    Francois: any comments from object procvessing experts?
    ... suggest that people take a close look at the proposed update

    we will then approve the document next week

    Jo: Francois fault to raise this issue
    ... text needs to be changed for this section
    ... I am hoping that it won't be substantive change
    ... failed docs will pass, hoping
    ... minor clarifiction of that, 406 means that server does not have
    a compatible to serve
    ... there is an issue here that external resources would have
    failed, 406
    ... if the URI does not resolve that will call a failure
    ... Kai, it would be good if you give your comments

    kai: not sure what you mean

    Jo: 406 means the server look at the header, and it doesn't have a
    suitable resource
    ... as things stand if the document links to somewhere..

    kai: we had already cleared that
    ... what about the areas in the document that you link to

    Jo: link resources is not examined
    ... if links broken, that should not cause a failre
    ... we had such a long discussion

    Kai: I agree that;s a good soslution
    ... you can be responsible from where you link to

    Jo: right, OK. Just to be completely clear about this
    ... link resources for which the URI does not resolve will result in
    failure

    I believe we have discussed in the pass and agreed on this, but I
    just wanted to make sure that we agree

    Kai: I believe the discussion cannot be brought to its full
    conclusion, but this seems reasonable.

    Jo: I am happy with this, anybody has any views you should fail
    MobileOK for URLs not reolves then they need to speak now or keep
    quite forever

    Francois: I agree with the suggested changes
    ... If you have any comments, please tell them. Please review the
    proposed changes and we will resolve next week
    ... any other comments on Mobile OK?
    ... Jo, can we get an updated draft next week

    Jo: I will get it done tonigh, that will be draft 41

Progress corner

    Francois: can we make a press release that we are working on
    enhanced best practices.

    adam: I am definetely going to circulate on Monday

    and a working draft next wed.

    Adam: sorry for running late, I will circulate Monday

    Francois: CTG, we are addressing the remaining issues
    ... it would be easier if we get the workign draft
    ... Checker?

    Miguel: we are making progress
    ... we haven't finished the...
    ... we are finishing the object processing
    ... we hope to commit the latest changes tmorrow morning

    and finish the scripts, and CSS stuff

    Francois: depending on whether there is an objection to Jo's
    proposal to Object processing

    Miguel: depending on your changes, we have to make some
    modifications to the code

    Francois: it will just be adjustments, fine-tunning

    Miguel: yes

    Francois: thank you, any comment on checker?
    ... MobileOK Pro?

    Kai: no, there is no to do

    <dom> ACTION-798?

    <trackbot> ACTION-798 -- Kai Scheppe to work proposed changes into
    the mobileOK Pro document and then turn it over to the group -- due
    2008-06-25 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/798

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/798

    Francois: action to address the comments dicussed in F2F

    Kai: I haven't looked at that

    Francois: you have one or two actions

    <francois> ACTION-798?

    <trackbot> ACTION-798 -- Kai Scheppe to work proposed changes into
    the mobileOK Pro document and then turn it over to the group -- due
    2008-06-25 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/798

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/798

    Francois: to be precise these are the actions
    ... thanks

Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call WD

    <francois> [22]Request for comments on Widgets

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0066.html

    Francois: let's look at the review requested

    the document is in last call, we were asked to review

    Francois: action someone to take a look at the document

    <dom> ["The Last Call period ends on 1 August 2008."]

    Francois: an report to the document, is there a specialist?

    Jo: I am not going to offer to do that

    I have other fish to fry

    someone could take an action to raise an issue

    and then we would be able to discuss on the list

    Francois: would like to do both: to raise an issue and have someone
    to look at it

    Jo: it depends what the final comments are
    ... I am happy to respond to that
    ... what I cannot promise to do review on time and then take it
    further

    any volunteer?

    Francois: anybody?

    Brian: I just gona say to make initial comments?

    Francois: initial comments to trigger the discussion in the mailing
    list?

    Bryan: not sure what is raising an issue?

    Francois: we could do it right now
    ... creating an issue now

    Dom: I guess if we have someone owning an action, issue is unneeded,
    overhead

    Pontus: I will be on vocation for 4 weeks

    so may be you are not the right victom

    Francois: Bryan, volunteer?

    Bryan: I can send some comments to the list

    <dom> ACTION: Bryan to send initial comments on Widget Requirements
    [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-806 - Send initial comments on Widget
    Requirements [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-07-10].

    Francois: initial comments would be good

    Thanks Bryan

Issues and Actions

    Francois: already some open actions are closed

    <francois> [24]Obsolete actions already closed

      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jul/0001.html

    <dom> [25]12 pending review action items

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/pendingreview

    Francois: some pending review actions

    Jo: I just wanted to mention that we had a discussion about if we
    will have calls in August

    Francois: you are both away in August

    I was planning to create a poll and send the link to the list

    Jo: why don't we do it with a poll

    Francois: I will create a little poll and see where that leads
    ... some calls won't happen in August
    ... pending actions?

    <dom> ACTION-637?

    <trackbot> ACTION-637 -- Alan Chuter to check on which WCAG 1.0
    checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. -- due
    2008-02-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/637

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/637

    Action 637?

    <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

    related to mobile OK pro, we are not stressing this ..

    any objection to close this?

    <dom> close ACTION-637

    <trackbot> ACTION-637 Check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were
    dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. closed

    <dom> ACTION-677?

    <trackbot> ACTION-677 -- Daniel Appelquist to create an issue to
    start bringing together potential test cases. -- due 2008-03-06 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/677

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/677

    Action 677

    <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

    <dom> ISSUE-268?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-268 -- Test cases to illustrate mobile web
    application best practices -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/268

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/268

    <dom> close ACTION-677

    <trackbot> ACTION-677 Create an issue to start bringing together
    potential test cases. closed

    Francois: to advertise the examples on caching dynamic, etc. I am a
    bit late on my action

    <dom> ACTION-688?

    <trackbot> ACTION-688 -- Charles McCathieNevile to check if Opera
    supports WBXML in and/or out of its WML support -- due 2008-03-11 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/688

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/688

    Francois: has any impact mobile Web best practices?
    ... Charles never replied, don't need anymore?

    any comment?

    Jo: what about leaving it open

    Francois: how does that affect mobile web application best
    practiices?
    ... Why?

    Jo: he didn't do it, did he?

    Dom: we put it in pending even though it is not complete
    ... it is not relevant anymore

    Bryan: I don't know about Opera's support for .... But
    ... most common xml encoding is WBXML
    ... every device that has SMS suport, they do WBXML
    ... not sure about Opera, but it is a useful thing for MWBP

    <dom> reopen ACTION-688

    <trackbot> ACTION-688 Check if Opera supports WBXML in and/or out of
    its WML support re-opened

    Francois: let's switch it to open then
    ... WBXML can be used for compression...

    <dom> ACTION-720?

    <trackbot> ACTION-720 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise an issue on
    extending BPs on ADC and seamless Korean inputs -- due 2008-03-27 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/720

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/720

    Francois: I don't think it is relevant anymore

    any objection to close this action?

    <dom> close ACTION-720

    <trackbot> ACTION-720 Raise an issue on extending BPs on ADC and
    seamless Korean inputs closed

    <dom> ACTION-724?

    <trackbot> ACTION-724 -- Jo Rabin to raise discussion on list as to
    clarification of 2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict
    server preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the
    user specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of
    the server." -- due 2008-04-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/724

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/724

    <dom> ISSUE-242?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-242 -- User expression of persistent and session
    preferences -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/242

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/242

    Francois: you didn't do the action, but because of the issue, we can
    close the action, do you agree Jo?

    <dom> close ACTION-724

    <trackbot> ACTION-724 Raise discussion on list as to clarification
    of 2.5.2 "In cases where user preferences contradict server
    preferences, server preferences prevail, except where the user
    specifically requires their preferences to over-rule those of the
    server." closed

    Francois: close then

    <dom> ACTION-748?

    <trackbot> ACTION-748 -- Fran├žois Daoust to check what we need to do
    about a conformance section in BP2 -- due 2008-05-01 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/748

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/748

    Francois: any comment on this action?

    <dom> close ACTION-748

    <trackbot> ACTION-748 Check what we need to do about a conformance
    section in BP2 closed

    Let's close the action

    Bryan: we already moved those section from the doc anyway

    <dom> ACTION-753?

    <trackbot> ACTION-753 -- Jo Rabin to contact Tom Hume of Future
    Platforms about use of microformats -- due 2008-05-15 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/753

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/753

    Francois: let's close the action

    <dom> ISSUE-248?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-248 -- Can mobile device browsers make use of
    microformats? -- RAISED

    <trackbot>
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/248

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/248

    Dom: we don't have any action open on Microformats
    ... need to assign action to somebody to explore microformats? we
    need somebody to explore it, anybody?

    Francois: we switch this to pending action this morning

    <Kai> I think it is interesting, but I can't devote time to it

    we can live it open but need somebody to work on it

    Francois: mobile browsers support microformats, and can we suggest
    it in MWBP?

    <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: microformats are not deployed enough
    today in mobile browsers to deserve inclusion in MWABP (ISSUE-248)

    to explore this and find out whether mobile browsers support
    microformats?

    <jo> -1 to proposed resolution, I don't think we know

    <dom> ok, sounds fair

    <dom> let's leave it open then

    Francois: we need further investigation
    ... lets switch back to open

    <dom> close ACTION-753

    <trackbot> ACTION-753 Contact Tom Hume of Future Platforms about use
    of microformats closed

    dom: we can close the action

    <dom> ACTION-760?

    <trackbot> ACTION-760 -- Jo Rabin to reiterate the caveat on
    MobileOK in response to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce -- due
    2008-05-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/760

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/760

    <dom> close ACTION-760

    <trackbot> ACTION-760 Reiterate the caveat on MobileOK in response
    to Seungyun and cc Korean Task FOrce closed

    <dom> ACTION-773?

    <trackbot> ACTION-773 -- Jo Rabin to send his concerns to the
    mailing-list re. ISSUE-242 -- due 2008-06-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/773

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/773

    Jo: no response from Korean task force

    <dom> close ACTION-773

    <trackbot> ACTION-773 Send his concerns to the mailing-list re.
    ISSUE-242 closed

    <dom> ACTION-775.

    <dom> ACTION-775?

    <trackbot> ACTION-775 -- Jo Rabin to enact the RESOLUTION on OBJECTS
    or script and other updates to the references required as a result
    of other documents being in new revision -- due 2008-06-19 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/775

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/775

    Jo: I have done it three times

    <dom> close ACTION-775

    <trackbot> ACTION-775 Enact the RESOLUTION on OBJECTS or script and
    other updates to the references required as a result of other
    documents being in new revision closed

    Francois: change it under human

    <dom> ACTION-795?

    <trackbot> ACTION-795 -- Daniel Appelquist to see if R&D colleagues
    from Spain can help for developing/maintening mobileOK checker --
    due 2008-06-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/795

      [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/795

    <dom> close ACTION-795

    <trackbot> ACTION-795 See if R&D colleagues from Spain can help for
    developing/maintening mobileOK checker closed

    <dom> ACTION-803?

    <trackbot> ACTION-803 -- Kai Scheppe to get the definitive mobileOK
    example from Phil Archer -- due 2008-06-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/803

      [40] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/803

    Francois: he did find some people, so close

    Bryan: I would like to keep it open

    <dom>
    [41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0063.htm
    l

      [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0063.html

    <dom> ACTION-803:
    [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0063.htm
    l

      [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0063.html

    <trackbot> ACTION-803 Get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil
    Archer notes added

    \Bryan\Kai

    Kai: I haven't seen that, I would like to keep it open

    <dom> reopen ACTION-803

    <trackbot> ACTION-803 Get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil
    Archer re-opened

    <dom> close ACTION-803

    <trackbot> ACTION-803 Get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil
    Archer closed

    Kai: close this and open an action to follow on that

    Francois: that closes the pending review actions

    <Kai> ACTION: Kai to check on discussion of mobileOK pertinent
    issues in POWDER [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-807 - Check on discussion of mobileOK
    pertinent issues in POWDER [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-07-10].

    <francois> [44]Overdue actions

      [44] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/overdue

    there are some open actions, all take a look at these actions

    <dom> (still 36 overdue actions)

    Francois: goal is to have 5 minutes before the call and update the
    due that and put some rationale
    ... some actions go back to March so it would be good if they were
    addressed timely

    I will remind you these actions

    so if you can't please let me know that you cannot complete them

    not talking about the overdue actions from ...

    There is one for yeliz related to ARIA

    Yeliz: I don't think I have a definete answer this

    Francois: ARIA would be useful but ...
    ... please have a look at the actions and update the listed actions
    ... can we look at the open issues?

    <francois> [45]Open issues

      [45] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/open

    Francois: there are very old issues
    ... what do you think about the old actions?

    Kai, we need to make sure that we don't forget anything

    Francois: important point is that issues don't have actions
    associated to them, they don't trigger any discussion
    ... we have an issue for example that sms....
    ... can we come to conclusion on that?

    <dom> ISSUE-253?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-253 -- Binding to Incoming SMS from Script -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/253

      [46] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/253

    Francois: talking about issue 253

    Adam: I don't know any way of doing this

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to say I only raised the issue because no one
    else was willing to when it was raised in Seoul

    Adam: there was a comment to me, at the document it says... specific
    ways of doing it, and may be we need to cut this and say we cannot
    do this

    <jo> have nothing to add on this subject ...

    Bryan: wrt generic web applications...messaging is still under
    develeopments and Widget dev. is ...
    ... is there a way to arbitrarily bind an application to an incoming
    SMS, other than specific device API
    ... quite well supported....but from a generic, W3C perspective, may
    be quite early

    <jo> +1 to closing issue

    Francois: it already says push

    Adam: there is no standard way of doing it
    ... I am happy to close this issue

    Francois: there are 3 other issues, marked as pending

    <francois> ISSUE-239?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-239 -- We still have not found a suitable home for
    the Techniques. -- RAISED

    <trackbot>
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/239

      [47] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/239

    Francois: dom checked the w3C copyright, and need to move the
    techniques to anywhere else

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG is not responsible for
    transferring the techniques any longer. Close ISSUE-239.

    <Kai> +1 to closing it

    and suggest that it is not the problem of the working group

    Jo: I guess this means that the techniques are forever...
    ... before closing this

    Francois: techniques is still opened

    Jo: I think we need an issue that the whole thing will be shut down

    <Kai> We should shut it down properly.

    Jo: I prefer if we kill it
    ... I mean turn it off, sorry guys it's gone

    <francois> [48]Techniques Wiki

      [48] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/techs/TechniquesIntro

    Francois: it's already done, it's no longer maintained

    Jo: it is possible that it contains info. inaccurate

    <Kai> q

    Jo: can we have it disappeared

    Francois: I am not sure about the doc.

    <hgerlach> heiko has to leave- sorry, bye

    Kai: I agree with Jo, it has to go, nobody is maintining and can be
    embarrassing

    Francois: we like to have consistency

    Kai: that's what jo suggested

    <jo> ACTION: daoust to arrange the funeral of Techniques [recorded
    in [49]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-808 - Arrange the funeral of Techniques
    [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2008-07-10].

    <francois> ISSUE-249?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-249 -- Should we include information use of DCCI in
    BP2? -- RAISED

    <trackbot>
    [50]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/249

      [50] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/249

    Francois: last issue?

    <francois> [51]discussion during Sophia's F2F

      [51] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-bpwg-minutes.html#item_awareness

    Francois: we had a discussion in F2F meeting

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: DCCI is not implemented yet. We
    should not create any dependency on it. Don't mention DCCI in this
    version of MWABP.

    <jo> +1

    Francois: don't create dependency on something that has not been
    implemented yet

    <Pontus2> +1

    Francois: any objection on that?

    <aconnors> +1

    RESOLUTION: DCCI is not implemented yet. We should not create any
    dependency on it. Don't mention DCCI in this version of MWABP.

    <francois> ISSUE-252?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-252 -- Currency of Scope Document -- RAISED

    <trackbot>
    [52]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/252

      [52] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/252

    Francois: mostly already done

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove reference to scope of BP1
    from BP2

    Francois: Adam, do you remember this?

    Adam: I think we talked about this at the F2F

    <jo> +1

    <aconnors> +1

    Francois: any objection

    RESOLUTION: remove reference to scope of BP1 from BP2

    Francois: that's all the issue I wanted to address

    <jo> [thanks Francois for chairing which was a great help :-)]

    Francois: thanks for attending, we will discuss the future of the
    mobile Ok tests

    <jsmanrique> see you

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Bryan to send initial comments on Widget Requirements
    [recorded in
    [53]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: daoust to arrange the funeral of Techniques [recorded
    in [54]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Kai to check on discussion of mobileOK pertinent
    issues in POWDER [recorded in
    [55]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 16:02:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:57 UTC