- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:17:07 +0200
- 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