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

[minutes] BPWG Teleconference Thursday 10 July 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:17:07 +0200
Message-ID: <487627F3.4000806@w3.org>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.

In short:
- the group resolved to publish draft 44 of the mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 
document as a Proposed Recommendation. Thanks Jo!
- the coding phase of the mobileOK checker is over. Thanks Abel and 
Miguel! The test suite now needs to be completed. I'll update the online 
checker so that anyone can try it out. We're targeting a public v1.0 
release on July 22.
- we'll see next week if we can resolve to publish a First Public 
Working Draft of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices document on 
July 22 as well.

Francois


10 Jul 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0051.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           DKA, Drooks, SeanP, abel, francois, jeffs, jo, miguel, yeliz

    Regrets
           EdM, rob, murari, manrique, soonho, kai, AlanC, AdamC, Heiko,
           dom

    Chair
           jo

    Scribe
           Dan

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Task Force Reports: Checker
          2. [6]CT Task Force
          3. [7]Korean Task Force
          4. [8]Mobile and Accessibility Document
          5. [9]Mobile Web Applications Doc
          6. [10]Draft 44 of MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0
          7. [11]BP 1.5 (was mobileOK Pro)
          8. [12]MobileOK Scheme & Power Labels Doc
          9. [13]Meetings through the Summer
         10. [14]TPAC Poll
         11. [15]Good Standing Rules
         12. [16]Issues & Actions
      * [17]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Task Force Reports: Checker

    Jo: Judging from correspondence we are close to a conclusion.

    Miguel: The checker code is updated to the latest ...
    ... With this update we have closed all the critical bugs - some
    enhancements still open - but this doesn't mean the checker is
    finished
    ... it just means we've moved to the testing stage.

    Jo: to be clear, you're saying we have a complete set of test cases
    for everything we know about for all the outcomes of mobileOk as of
    draft 44 and all test cases pass?

    Miguel: not exactly. We're finished coding and now we're going to do
    the tests.
    ... Now we are going to review the test suite, make sure that all
    new tests are covered in the tests suite...

    Jo: Thanks for clarification. How long will the process take?

    Miguel: We could split testing into 2 categories.
    ... Within 2 weeks are so we could review all the test suite and
    make sure it corresponds to the latest draft.
    ... Users in general could try this new version that corresponds to
    the last call of the [mobileok] document.

    Jo: that sounds good -- any resolutions possible?

    <francois> q

    Jo: We've taken a resolution that the checker TF should (once it's
    achieved conditions set out in the f2f that the test coverage is
    complete and successfully passed) that you can declare it's done. As
    far as I'm considered MobileOK basic tests is done at vers. 44.
    ... there shouldn't be any more changes to MobileOK basic tests. So
    in 2 weeks tests should be up to date.
    ... Do you want to user testing before you declare release 1.0 or
    are you happy to declare it done once the test coverage is passed?
    ... At what point do we say "it's release 1.0"? How much user
    testing do you want to put this through before we declare release
    1.0?

    Miguel: the plan would be to launch a new Beta with the current code
    and start a review process at coding level from abel, miguel,
    francois and perform user testing. If all is as we expect then by
    July 22 there will be a release [for user testing].

    Francois: there are actually 3 levels of testing - the first is at
    the code level (the test suite) what the task force is working on;
    the second level is participants of BP group doing tests - treating
    checker as a black box; the third is the user level - public testing
    - for this we will update the validator at w3.org - will allow us to
    use the logs. Goal is to have release 1.0 at July 22 - when the user
    testing will begin - public release.

    Jo: You will put a call out to the group to tell them to test the
    cheker.

    Francois: yes.

    Jo: We look forward to that.

CT Task Force

    Francois: making progress on the remaining issue - covered the
    possible arguments for the remaining diverging points. Now about to
    release a new draft. I'd say we're in good shape.

    Jo: I don't think there's much in the updated draft - I've inserted
    a note on caching. People will have to read through that text. The
    document is substantially new. A diff will not be useful - needs to
    be re-read in its entirety.
    ... Will be available in the next couple of days.
    ... Any questions.

    [no questions]

Korean Task Force

    [no update - no reps from Korea]

Mobile and Accessibility Document

    Jo: Congratulations to Alan and Yeliz for getting this document out
    with our EOWG friends. Any update?

    <francois> [18]Second WD of the Accessibility document

      [18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mwbp-wcag-20080703/

    Yeliz: It would be good to discuss the timeframe. Can we do that
    next week? Best thing to do now would be to review the content of
    the 4 documents - read the content in detail.

    Jo: Ok - that makes sense - to have a focused session on it. Not
    sure looking at the contents in detail would be best but let's take
    it offline with Yeliz, Alan, Francois, Dan and myself.

    DKA: Any additional feedback from EO we need to discuss?

    Yeliz: no nothing from EO group we need to consider.

    Jo: I've looked at it. They look a great deal improved. They're a
    lot clearer.

    DKA: I've reviewed it - it looks good to me but I'm not as familiar
    with the WCAG checkpoints as some.

    Yeliz: yes - those who are familiar with both documents need to
    review.

    Jo: Let's try to think about how we can get review in an offline
    way.

    Yeliz: EO working group is planning to organize some focussed
    sessions for these documents but the date hasn't been arranged yet.

    Jo: Let's publicize that - let's try to have some representations
    from BPWG in those sessions.

    Yeliz: I'll let you know.

    Jo: Thanks, Yeliz.

    DKA: Will anything be happening at the TPAC?

    Jo: Hopefully we will be done with these by now.

    Francois: You just mentioned last call for these document but if
    you're going to publish a working note then a LC won't be needed. We
    can just issue a note when we want to.

    DKA: Think they need to be normative. KIDDIN!

    [har har]

Mobile Web Applications Doc

    Jo: Don't know if we can make any progress without Adam on the call.
    Any comments from anyone?

    Francois: no comment on the content - think it's going in the right
    direction. Good to publish it as a FPWD. But for the transition of
    the BP 1.0 to Rec we'd like to be able to tell the story that we're
    working on an enhanced BP - so it would be good to publish BP 2.0 at
    the same time. So strongly support a resolution as FPWD with minimum
    number of changes.

    DKA: I support putting a FPWD out there pending editorial review.

    Jo: Adam has said he has a further version available. I'm not sure
    that in the absense of seeing that a resolution is meaningful. Also
    I have pedantic^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h spelling and grammar fixes I'd like
    to see implemented.
    ... [unminuitable]
    ... we get the next draft from adam - we then say we want to take a
    resolution on next week's call. Anyone who's got any objections
    needs to state them.

    Jeff: I can help with editorial if needed.

    Jo: Thanks, Jeff.

    DKA: So that meet our need with regard to the press release?

    Jo: That's the missing piece - we're unclear as to when the BP1
    press release is going to be made.

    Francois: It won't happen next week -- we're targetting July the
    22nd.
    ... there are a number of things happening at the same time.

    Jo: We're ont he 10th - by the 17th we should be able to make a
    resolution to go to FPWD which should be in time [just].

    Francois: comment on this document- about the title of the best
    practices. Here we have statements as headings which is different
    from bp1. I think it's better [the way bp2 is].

    Jo: My view, Jeff, is that in fact the section structure is
    orthoganal to the bp structure. Right at the moment we have 1
    statement per section - but it's up to the editors to decide if that
    makes sense.

Draft 44 of MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

    PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: It's all good.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG is done with this doc and would
    like the

    <jo> Team to progress to PR (please)

    <francois> +1

    PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves to request MobileOK
    Basic Test 1.0 and would like the team to progress to Proposed
    Recommendation.

    PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test
    1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document and
    would like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.

    PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test
    1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document
    and, having received no substantive comments on the 2nd last call of
    the document, would like the team to progress to Proposed
    Recommendation.

    <jeffs> +1

    PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test
    1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document
    and, having received no substantive comments on the 4th last call of
    the document and made no subtantive changes since this time, would
    like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.

    <jo> +1

    PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test
    1.0 draft 44 is the final and definitive version of the document
    and, having received no substantive comments on the 4th last call of
    the document and made no subtantive changes since this time, would
    like the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation. Amen.

    <francois> +1

    <jeffs> +1

    +1

    +44

    RESOLUTION: The group resolves that MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 draft 44
    is the final and definitive version of the document and, having
    received no substantive comments on the 4th last call of the
    document and made no subtantive changes since this time, would like
    the team to progress to Proposed Recommendation.

    [hurrah!]

    Francois: to prepare the PR - we need to prepare some official
    responses to the comments.

    Jo: We should do that but there was one official comment and that
    was Dom's.

    Francois: Mine was in the comment period but that was small.

    <scribe> ACTION: Francois to prepare official responses to the two
    comments. [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-809 - Prepare official responses to the
    two comments. [on François Daoust - due 2008-07-17].

    Jo: We need to choose 10 well known sites - but I think we have
    enough on that.

    Francois: I think we do -

    <francois> [20]implementation report

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileok-implementation-report

    We could add dev.mobi in there.

    Francois: If someone else has a 10th site then that would be
    completely done. I think the tools are worth many sites.

    Jo: Done on that then?

BP 1.5 (was mobileOK Pro)

    Jo: AFAIK no progress, right?

MobileOK Scheme & Power Labels Doc

    Jo: No progress.

Meetings through the Summer

    <jo> [21]Poll on Summer Meetings

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/bpwg-summer08/

    Jo: We have a poll on whether we should meetings through the summer.
    Please answer the poll - and we will take a resolutuion next week on
    which meetings we will hold in the summer [largely August] if any.

    <jeffs> [22]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/

TPAC Poll

    <jo> [23]Oct F2F Poll

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/

    Jo: Please also answer the TPAC poll .

Good Standing Rules

    Jo: Francois has done a good standing run - those on the call have
    good standing. We need to keep the group vibrant and enjoyable. [We
    are WATCHING YOU.]

    Francois: We are about to re-create the group - everyone will rejoin
    the group in August. As far as good standing rules go we will re-set
    all the counters.

    <jeffs> BRB

Issues & Actions

    <jo> [24]Pending Review

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

    <francois> ACTION-665?

    <trackbot> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what
    support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

    ACTION-665

    Jo: ATION-786

    <jo> ACTION-786?

    <trackbot> ACTION-786 -- Jo Rabin to draft wording for an appendix
    that identifies the aggregators and operator roles that are
    different in the mobile ecosystem. -- due 2008-06-24 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/786

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/786

    Jo: Don't think this holds up publication of first WD. Suggest we
    keep this in pending review.

    <jo> ACTION-800?

    <trackbot> ACTION-800 -- Jo Rabin to remove references to mobileOK
    Pro in the mobileOK Basic Tests Document -- due 2008-06-25 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/800

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/800

    Jo: Suggest we close.

    [no objections]

    Jo: Closed.

    <jeffs> I'm back

    ACTION-665?

    <trackbot> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what
    support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

    <jo> ACTION-665?

    <trackbot> ACTION-665 -- Alan Chuter to talk to Jeffs about what
    support they can provide on examples -- due 2008-02-28 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/665

    Jeff: no nothing's happened. I can email Alan about it.
    ... Let's try to kill it off next week.

    Jo: Remaining onese on CT guidelines - we'll deal with them on CT
    call.

    Francois: yes.

    Jo: Shall we call it a day?

    <jeffs> yes

    Francois: On the ongoing call for review of xHTML basic 1.1 and
    xhtml modu... - they are about to move to Rec. The more support they
    get from A.C. members the better. Please reply to these calls for
    review.

    Jo: Also - We have been asked to review the widget requirements
    spec.

    <francois> Call for review for XHTML Modularization:
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xhtmlmod11-2008/

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xhtmlmod11-2008/

    <francois> Call for review for XHTML Basic 1.1:
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xhtmlbasic2008/

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xhtmlbasic2008/

    Jo: ETSI liaison.

    DKA: Yes - we haven't sent that along to the group yet.

    Jo: Let's make a resolution next week.

    DKA: I will circulate the material (an email) to the member list for
    working group review.

    <jo> ACTION: Dan to circulate ETSI liaison request to member list
    [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-810 - Circulate ETSI liaison request to
    member list [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-07-17].

    <francois> ACTION-806?

    <trackbot> ACTION-806 -- Bryan Sullivan to send initial comments on
    Widget Requirements -- due 2008-07-10 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/806

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/806

    Jo: Let's put widget spec on the agendum for next week.

    DKA: I will chair next week and will chase.

    Jo: AOB?
    ... We close.

    <yeliz> bye

    Bye!

    <abel> bye

    <jeffs> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Dan to circulate ETSI liaison request to member list
    [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Francois to prepare official responses to the two
    comments. [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 15:17:37 UTC

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