[minutes] Thursday 26 June 2008 Teleconf


The minutes of today's call are available at:

... and copied as text below

- We publish a public working draft of the current version of the 
MWBP-WCAG document (Alan's latest, with agreed changes from today's 
discussion implemented).
- Close the actions enumerated by Dom in his email dated 26-June-2008 
unless anyone objects by EOD 30-June-2008.


26 Jun 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0062.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-bpwg-irc


           jeffs, DKA, francois, heiko, SeanP, miguel, scott, Dom,
           achuter, yeliz

           Jo, Adam, EdM, Kai, Murari, Bryan, Aaron, Pontus, Chaals,
           rob, Soonho, abel, MartinJ, Yeliz, AlanTai


           francois, Dan


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Rechartering of the group
          2. [6]CT Guidelines
          3. [7]ETSI liaison
          4. [8]Accessibility document
          5. [9]mobileOK Basic Tests
          6. [10]Quick report on Device Description Working Group
          7. [11]mobileOK Checker
      * [12]Summary of Action Items

    DKA: The agenda was a bag of topics not necessarily in the good
    ... First thing I'd like to address today is the rechartering

Rechartering of the group

    <dom> ACTION-776?

    <trackbot> ACTION-776 -- François Daoust to start the rechartering
    process -- due 2008-06-23 -- OPEN


      [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/776

    DKA: To switch CT from informative to normative

    Francois: new charter should go to the AC on Monday. Review period
    takes us to July the 28th.
    ... Link to new charter forthcoming:

    <francois> [14]Updated charter to review

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/MWBP-WG-charter.html

CT Guidelines

    DKA: OK, what's happening on the CT guidelines

    Francois: We had a call on Tuesday. Problem is the following: We
    have one remaining issue left from f2f where we made "great"
    ... The remaining issue will best be addressed once we see all the
    changes to the document.\
    ... We need an updated document.
    ... The problem is that Jo is so lazy^h^h^h^hbusy that he can't
    update the document.
    ... Don't think we can resolve the remaining issue before we get the
    updated draft.

    DKA: Any indication from Jo on the draft eta?

    Francois: Within weeks.

    <dom> jeffs, the remaining issue is ISSUE-242

    <dom> ISSUE-242?

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


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

    Francois: Jo should prioritize mobile web best practices 1.0 and
    mobileOK basic tests ahead ot CT.

    DKA: Agree with that priority but it's crucial to get out a LC draft
    of the CT document ASAP.

    Francois: Yes, but the real goal is to publish the Last Call by end
    of July. If possible sooner would be better.

    DKA: I would prefer sooner.

    DKA: Any way we can speed it up?

    Francois: We need to have some discussion on the mailing list on the
    remaining issues - will start soon.

    DKA: any other comment on CT?

ETSI liaison

    DKA: Who wants to talk about that?
    ... I think Jo and I took a joint action to do something about that
    ... on the last SC call
    ... I think that Jo and I need to discuss that a little bit before
    we can come back to the group
    ... Let's move on

    <dom> ISSUE: Respond to ETSI liaison

    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-267 - Respond to ETSI liaison ; please
    complete additional details at
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/267/edit .

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/267/edit

Accessibility document

    DKA: Alan issued a new draft on Tuesday, thanks.

    alan: There's a changelog

    <dom> [17]Alan's mail on Mobile accessibility document, Version 24
    June 2008

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0061.html

    DKA: The main topics we've talked about during the F2F have been
    taken cared of, I think.
    ... You scoped down the together document to a mere note.
    ... You moved the empty stuff to the end of the pages.
    ... Would you like to call out any specific thing?

    <jeffs> should have some form of audience section

    alan: The audience section. What do other people think about it?
    ... It's gone, should I put it back?

    DKA: I don't think it's worth bothering with it right now.

    <jeffs> IMHO shold explicitly state audience, even if very short

    alan: the audience is really the same as the one that would normally
    read WCAG and MWBP.

    DKA: I think we should not worry about that issue for this draft.
    ... I'd rather we focus on the content

    <jeffs> IMHO all such docs should explicitly state audience from
    which they proceed, even if very short statement

    DKA: Eventually, it needs an audience back, I agree.

    alan: let's go through my points. Francois replied he thought the
    Audience section should go.
    ... There's another section entitled "Managing Overlapping
    ... "Benefits" could be clearer

    DKA: francois?

    francois: would love to see "benefits" in the title, but can't find
    any cool title with "benefit" in it, so I suggest we just leave it
    as it is

    DKA: yes, agree, let's leave it as it is

    alan: How to use this document. There are links and a table.
    ... Francois mentioned the title are too long. I think it's right.
    We may use the short titles instead of the long titles.

    DKA: I think we should use the bullet list for now.

    alan: OK, this can be changed really easily.

    DKA: From the purpose of clarity, the table is an optimization.

    <DKA> Alan - it's a nice table!

    DKA: but from the purpose of clarity, we should have the text. It's
    more important for the reader.
    ... Or we could keep both.

    <jeffs> is it broken? if not, leave it alone

    DKA: I'm erring on the side of "If we can afford not to make changes
    to this document before publishing, let's not make changes"
    ... So my point was: Alan, you can keep both, I'd prefer the text

    alan: Then, there's a section called "Differences between WCAG and
    MWBP" which was renamed

    <jeffs> if focus of msg is diffs, call it that

    alan: to state that WCAG uses priorities and level where MWBP don't

    DKA: We could say "Structural differences between WCAG and MWBP"
    ... because there are lots of other differences

    alan: Then, Francois' comments.
    ... "Relationship" disappeared from the title of the document.
    ... At one time, it was because it was to be about WCAG and MWBP

    DKA: I don't know that we have to put "Relationship" in there. It's

    <dom> (good point, indeed)

    francois: Without "Relationship", when you reference the document or
    list it somewhere, it seems to be the fusion of both rec

    DKA: OK, I'm happy to put "Relationship" back

    Alan: OK
    ... Next, I added the Contents link at the top of the navigation
    ... but it's not consistent with the other pages

    <dom> "Great Relationships" maybe, then?

    Yeliz: Coming back to the title, what about "Synergies" instead of

    DKA: Jo would kill me if we do that. Seriously, I think we should
    avoid it as it's a kind of a Buzz word
    ... I suggest we leave "Relationship" for the time being, and
    propose that you raise this again a bit later on.
    ... Back to the "Contents" link, I think I agree with Francois, and
    that we should remove the link to be consistent with the other

    Alan: OK.
    ... In each page, the links in the "Nothing" section, the links for
    the SC can't target anywhere in the doc because there's nowhere to
    point to.
    ... That's confusing. What could we do?

    <jeffs> consistency in link targets will result in document that is
    easier to actually use

    francois: [emphasizing the confusion]. Proposes to complete the list
    in the Something section to link down in the document

    alan: They will be consistent because the Everything section will be

    rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080624/mwbp-wcag20.html#summary_work Summary
    from MWBP to WCAG 2.0


    francois: just so that we agree, because there's no "Everything"
    section in the page I just pasted in IRC

    alan: OK. It's organized differently in this page.
    ... I agree, it's not consistent here.

    DKA: We could add explicit text such as "WCAG, section 1.1.1"
    instead of "1.1.1"
    ... it's not that elegant but I don't see how we can do otherwise

    francois: fine with this approach, just think we need to be
    consistent in all pages

    alan: further down, there is both a "Refer to" link and a "Back to
    list of" link which point more or less to the same place
    ... I think the "Refer to" link should be taken out, useful to edit
    the document, but not for readers

    DKA: And then Francois listed some typo fixes which I think you can
    just include without us having to review the document.
    ... My perspective is that I'm happy with the document as it is,
    modulo the discussion we just had, and I'm ready to delegate the doc
    to Alan
    ... so that he pushes forward to Public Working Draft

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We publish a public working draft of the
    current version of the MWBP-WCAG document (Alan's latest, with
    agreed changes from today's discussion implemented).

    alan: Tomorrow we'll discuss this in the EOWG, but I don't expect
    any major changes.

    <achuter> +1

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We publish a public working draft of the
    current version of the MWBP-WCAG document (Alan's latest, with
    agreed changes from today's discussion implemented).

    DKA: yes, unless there's a huge problem, I think we should publish
    it! Francois, could you take an action to do that?

    francois: sure!

    <DKA> +1

    <dom> +1

    <jeffs> +1

    <yeliz> +1

    <hgerlach> +1

    RESOLUTION: We publish a public working draft of the current version
    of the MWBP-WCAG document (Alan's latest, with agreed changes from
    today's discussion implemented).

    alan: It would be good at some stage if Charles for instance would
    review the document completely.

    DKA: Sure, but I think we need to plan an outreach on the doc. I
    plan to blog about it on Betavine for instance

    alan: and I'll [scribe missed that]

    <achuter> Alan will be presenting on it at ICCHP in Linz next month

    DKA: Thanks a lot Alan!

    <dom> [I didn't send any new comment this week :) ]

mobileOK Basic Tests

    <dom> "send comments to public-bpwg-comments@w3.org (with public
    archive) through 30 June 2008"

    DKA: When is the review period supposed to end?
    ... 30th. Right. We're quite close to the end of our comments
    period, and I don't think there were any new comment.
    ... I think we'll wait for the 30th in the hope that noone will step
    in with damaging comments...

Quick report on Device Description Working Group

    DKA: DDWG had their last F2F last week, and approved publication of
    their documents.
    ... So basically, they are done with their charter
    ... I think it's important to know that, you know, working groups do
    end from time to time! :)
    ... Any thoughts on this?

    dom: Happy this is completed. Big service for the community. And
    hopefully, it would serve us for the Mobile Web Application Best
    ... It still needs to go through the process though

mobileOK Checker

    DKA: Any further update from the checker

    miguel: We had a call yesterday. We reviewed of Bugzilla bugs,
    closed some of them, and saw how to address other. We plan to have
    another call next week. We've distributed the workload among

    DKA: Great. I added a group participant from Vodafone Spain. Did he
    make contact?

    miguel: yes, we had some email exchanges from Oscar, but he couldn't
    make it for the call. He asked for the minutes of the call, so
    hopefully will be among us next week.
    ... Any question on the checker?
    ... Are we expecting a new release of the checker before mid-July so
    that we can make this part of the annoucement?

    dom: we're targeting this, but the changes introduced by the last
    call of mobileOK Basic Tests is hard to address

    DKA: OK, so this brings us to the mid-July press release. What's the

    dom: Current plan is to focus on MWBP based on XHTML Basic 1.1 with
    an emphasis on the work on Mobile Web Application Best Practices.
    ... We clearly need an updated draft of MWABP by then to publish a
    FPWD of the doc at the same time.
    ... We need testimonials from you guys, feel free to follow up with
    ... Process-wise, I can't tell you much, but we're in a good shape
    for MWBP. Unless there's a problem with XHTML Basic 1.1, we should
    be fine.

    DKA: I assume Adam is working on an updated version of MWABP.
    ... I think we basically covered the agenda items I wanted to
    address today.
    ... Remaining stuff is issues and actions, and propose to postpone
    that to next week

    <dom> [I just sent a list of actions that I think can be closed
    easily en masse next week ]

    DKA: unless someone has actions that he wants to see closed?

    dom: I sent this to the member list as it's administrative and
    ... I looked at the good candidates that could be closed easily. I
    suggest we close them "en masse" next week.

    <dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: close all the action items identified in
    l without futher discussion

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jun/0069.html

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close the actions enumerated by Dom in
    his email dated 26-June-2008 unless anyone objects by EOD


    <DKA> +1

    RESOLUTION: Close the actions enumerated by Dom in his email dated
    26-June-2008 unless anyone objects by EOD 30-June-2008.

    DKA: Thanks dom

    dom: Just, as a reminder, when you take an action, please take 5mn
    before the call to review it, update the due date if necessary (it
    shouldn't!), update the status to "Pending review" when done.

    DKA: absolutely right Dom!
    ... AOB?
    ... OK, session adjourned!

    <miguel> bye

    <manrique> bye

    <hgerlach> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 15:30:21 UTC