- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:29:16 +0200
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below
Resolutions:
- 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.
Francois.
26 Jun 2008
[2]Agenda
[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
Attendees
Present
jeffs, DKA, francois, heiko, SeanP, miguel, scott, Dom,
achuter, yeliz
Regrets
Jo, Adam, EdM, Kai, Murari, Bryan, Aaron, Pontus, Chaals,
rob, Soonho, abel, MartinJ, Yeliz, AlanTai
Chair
DKA
Scribe
francois, Dan
Contents
* [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
order.
... 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
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/776
[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"
progress.
... 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
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/242
[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
statement
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
requirements".
... "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
together.
DKA: I don't know that we have to put "Relationship" in there. It's
implied
<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
page
... 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
"Relationship"?
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
pages.
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
deleted
->
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080624/mwbp-wcag20.html#summary_work Summary
from MWBP to WCAG 2.0
[18]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080624/mwbp-wcag20.html#summary_work
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
Practices.
... 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
participants.
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
status?
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
Marie-Claire
... 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
boring
... 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
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jun/0069.htm
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
30-June-2008.
+1
<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