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

[minutes] Thursday 27 March 2008 Teleconf

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:35:56 +0100
Message-ID: <47EBCCEC.3080608@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org

Hi guys,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
... and pasted as text below.


27 Mar 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0078.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-bpwg-irc


           Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, Ed_Mitukiewicz, Heiko, JonathanJ,
           Phil_Archer, Sean_Owen, Shahriar, abel, achuter, adam, dom,
           drooks, francois, jeffs, manrique, miguel

           MartinJ, Jo, Murari, rob, AlanTai, Magnus, SeanP, Jason,
           chaals, nacho, Kai, kemp




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]mobileOK Pro
          2. [6]Content Tranformation guidelines
          3. [7]Korean TF
          4. [8]Accessibility document
          5. [9]action items and issue review
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

mobileOK Pro

    DKA: Phil, updates on pro?

    PhilA: had a meeting yesterday. Working through tests, looking at
    past work, and preparing to write more

    are the changes that we've already made addressing the issues of
    wanting to make the tests more repeatable?

    we've made them as repeatable as possible

    the posted version on the site is up to date

    latest version was attached to a recent mail from Kai on the list

    we wonder whether we're heading down the right track -- are the
    tests repeatable enough?

    <dom> [11]mobileOK Pro latest draft


    <dom> [12]Kai's announcement




    we think the first dozen tests are repeatable, solid

    that's the kind of approach we're taking

    we will use these as a template for more tests

    DKA: people took actions to write more tests yesterday

    PhilA: Dan has the first twenty...

    we're trying to listen to comments while making rapid progress

    DKA: comments, anyone?

    (none heard)

    we can look forward to a future draft where more tests are fleshed

    if we can get lazy people like myself to complete their ACTIONs

    next topic is content transformation. Francois?

Content Tranformation guidelines

    francois: was going to say we need to delay another week, but after
    another look, there is little left to address

    there will be points to address in the future

    the 2-3 remaining issues concern altering header values,

    we're having trouble finding a clean solution

    so maybe we can agree on a 'dirty' one

    for example, when the proxy changes the User-Agent header

    DKA: what are the 'dirty' options?

    francois: clean solution would have been to embed original headers
    using some multipart format

    but that isn't transparent for content providers

    the dirty solutions are to create an "X-" HTTP header and use it for
    this purpose,

    or use the ?? HTTP header (what was this?)

    final option is to not embed anything

    send modified HTTP request if needed

    need to agree on one of the the three options

    DKA: what's the plan to pick an option?

    francois: we'll agree on the next task force call on Tuesday

    there are minor issues -- changing wording ins ome parts of the doc

    it won't change the doc meaning, just make it more readable

    DKA: editorial changes, yes

    will we be in a position to implement changes by Wednesday, for
    review on Wednesday, and resolve to move to working draft next

    francois: will check with Jo to see if he is available on Wednesday

    I hope so

    DKA: shall we forget this and bless the 'manifesto'?

    francois: saw some discussion on the lists, and I wrote a post on
    the MWI blog

    maybe we can move to BPWG blog

    <francois> [14]fd's post


    <Bryan> fyi I will be switching to mobile so I can drive kids to

    it just notes that the CT taskforce exists and explains its work

    maybe would be more visible on the BPWG blog

    DKA: don't think we need a public reply or anything; good to have
    this post on the BPWG blog

    let's post along with the first working draft

    francois: yeah, but if the draft is delayed we lose time; it would
    be nice to wait, if less than 2 more weeks

    DKA: group resolution? don't think it's needed unless there is an

    francois: will proceed if there are no objections

    (none heard)

    DKA: you have thoughts on what if anything could be used from the
    manifesto document?

    francois: yes, the ideas are already present in the draft for the
    most part

    "never change the User-Agent header" -- I wish we could say such
    things but it's not possible, so we can't use ideas like that

    many ideas make sense

    many ideas are heuristics for proxy to figure out whether it needs
    to transform page or not

    but hard to write rules like "must not transform" because few easy
    cases truly exist

    for example, not converting XHTML pages ever is not a practical idea

    won't review this next Tuesday, as we have other issues, but can
    take these issues up after that

    DKA: next topic is BP2

    Bryan: I sent an update and emailed about it, including input from

    also text about classification of devices

    those are the only changes

    <dom> [15]new draft of BP2 from bryan


    <dom> [16]Diff since previous version


    DKA: lots of items in the ACTION queue that may relate to further

    Bryan are there particular things we should pay attention to in the
    new draft?

    Bryan: two sections from Jeff -- group should review and provide

    I've seen an exchange on the list but not sure how it changes the

    this addresses script "tuning", matching to capabilities, and the
    same for CSS

    the other input is on classification of devices. I pulled text from
    our developer site with examples of device classification

    if this looks good, great, otherwise input is requested

    DKA: any comments from the group?

    anyone want an action to review this?

    We'll have to approach this in a more structured way

    Bryan: we have good material in there -- how long to wait until we
    go to a public draft?

    DKA: Dom, francois, thoughts?

    dom: yes I think we should move to a public draft, as it will
    trigger review

    maybe 1 more week of review, and with no objection, resolve next
    week to publish as a public draft

    DKA: sounds good

    srowen: +1

    Bryan: two weeks would be fine too

    <dom> Bryan, I think the mention of "mobileOK" in
    D-mobile-bp2-20080327#conformance should be removed


    even if the doc is incomplete, with working notes, it's better to
    get it into the public view

    <dom> (agreed)

    DKA: next topic is the proposal regarding the Korean task force

    this came from the Seoul F2F meeting

    clear that it may be a good idea to set up a separate task force

Korean TF

    This TF will facilitate more communication input from Korea on BPs,
    from Mobile Web 2.0 forum

    translating language and requirements for Korean market

    <dom> [18]Korean TF charter proposal

      [18] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_7gvbm98fv

    I will take the liberty of walking people through the doc, Jonathan

    <JonathanJ> Proposal document :

      [19] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_7gvbm98fv

    TF leaders are Seungyun, Jonathan is a member

    also Soonho Lee

    Jonathan maybe you can answer on IRC -- is the proposal that one or
    both task force leaders would represent the task force in the main
    working group calls?

    <JonathanJ> Yes

    I think this is a good proposal and I support it

    I characterize this as an experiment

    maybe useful to set up additional task forces in local markets

    particularly supportive of this because of W3C Korea's and MW 2.0
    forum's support

    want to continue this relationship

    make it more productive

    other comments?

    I propose we resolve to accept this charter

    <JonathanJ> +1

    <jeffs> +1

    <francois> +1

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We accept the proposed task force charter
    document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to set up
    the task force as part of the BP group.

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We approve the proposed task force
    charter document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to
    set up the task force as part of the BP group.

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: We approve the proposed task force charter
    document for a Korean task force and work with all speed to set up
    the task force as part of the BP group.

    We'll be in touch about setting up mailing lists and other

    DKA: next topic, mobility and accessibility

Accessibility document

    comments from Sean Henry from WAI outreach -- can you summarize?

    achuter: I took an action to reorganize the document after our

    I just sent a message to both groups, a mockup to illustrate how the
    information has moved around

    there is some feedback so far

    some have suggested it is too complicated and a simple version is

    things are moving ahead, slowly

    DKA: can we take decisions today that would help move that along?



    achuter: no, just have a look at the reorganized document and see if
    it makes sense



    this document is for someone familiar with BP, and is now moving to

    for each WCAG criteria, this specifies how it relates to mobile, and
    enumerates success criteria

    further on, a section on BPs, which describes how BPs help meet WCAG
    success criteria

    DKA: who can take an action to review?
    ... let's create an ISSUE around this

    next item is actions and issues review

action items and issue review

    <dom> [22]Open action items

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open

    <dom> [23]Actions on BP2

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/products/14

    let's start with MWBP 2 actions

    <dom> ACTION-618?

    ACTION-618 on Ed

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-618 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to review Scope of
    BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 -- due 2008-01-17 --


      [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/618

    edm: guilty as charged, I don't have time lately...

    DKA: let's strike this?

    <dom> close ACTION-618

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-618 Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us
    about scope of BP2 closed

    <dom> ACTION-665?

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


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

    DKA: should be against accessibility doc, right?

    <dom> [26]context for the action

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-bpwg-minutes.html#action06

    <dom> ACTION-691?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-691 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise issue and
    start discussion on main page, external resources and so on -- due
    2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/691

    <dom> [28]context for ACTOIN-691

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04

    DKA: haven't done this yet

    <dom> ACTION-692?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-692 -- Sunghan Kim to provide some example BP
    statements based on the presentation he gave at Korea F2F -- due
    2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/692

    <dom> ACTION-693

    <dom> ACTION-693?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-693 -- Daniel Appelquist to raise issue with
    Dave Raggett in UWA and see if they will take forward from where we
    leave off -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/693

    <dom> [31]context for ACTION-693

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action08

    <dom> ACTION-694?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-694 -- Daniel Appelquist to review apple
    document and summarise the parts that might be applicable to BP2 --
    due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/694

    DKA: haven't done it

    <dom> ACTION-695?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-695 -- Jonathan Jeon to extract BP statements
    from K MWBP 1.5 document for consideration in BP 2.0 -- due
    2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/695

    DKA: if there are contributions to BP 2, now would be a good time

    thank you

    <dom> ACTION-697?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-697 -- Daniel Appelquist to summarize the
    points he can glean from examination of the frost library -- due
    2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/697

    <dom> ACTION-699?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-699 -- Bryan Sullivan to insert an Appendix
    listing the Device properties that BP2 is dependent upon -- due
    2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/699

    Bryan: appendix has been added, but there are no details yet

    <dom> close ACTION-699

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-699 Insert an Appendix listing the Device
    properties that BP2 is dependent upon closed

    <dom> ACTION-700?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-700 -- Bryan Sullivan to introduce a BP on
    classification of devices into High, Mid, Low etc on a per
    application basis - with an extended non-normative example, pethaps
    -- due 2008-03-11 -- OPEN


      [36] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/700

    <dom> close ACTION-700

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-700 Introduce a BP on classification of devices
    into High, Mid, Low etc on a per application basis - with an
    extended non-normative example, pethaps closed

    <dom> ACTION-712?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-712 -- Yeliz Yesilada to review ARIA to see
    what could be relevant to BP2 -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN


      [37] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712

    <dom> ACTION-704?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-704 -- Kai Scheppe to ensure that mobileOK Pro
    Tests doc is put on BPWG agenda -- due 2008-03-12 -- OPEN


      [38] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/704

    <dom> close ACTION-704

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-704 Ensure that mobileOK Pro Tests doc is put
    on BPWG agenda closed

    <dom> ACTION-712?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-712 -- Yeliz Yesilada to review ARIA to see
    what could be relevant to BP2 -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN


      [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/712

    <dom> ACTION-713?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-713 -- Sean Owen to review the AJAX
    contribution or ask Adam to do so -- due 2008-03-20 -- OPEN


      [40] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/713

    <dom> close ACTION-713

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-713 Review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to
    do so closed

    srowen: done

    <dom> [41]Sean's review of AJAX resources

      [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0040.html

    srowen: Bryan has digested it and incorporated what seems useful

    DKA: any checker updates?

    srowen: no, keep fixing bugs -- report some more issues for us

    DKA: how about the issue on communicating with Korea?

    <dom> ACTION-719?

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-719 -- Jeffrey Sonstein to take a look at the
    ref in 5.9.4 and summarize it -- due 2008-03-27 -- OPEN


      [42] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/719

    srowen: not sure, but nothing specific: everyone should be reviewing
    now, not later. It will be too late in a few weeks

    jeffs: will send some more code by emai (?)

    5.9.4 and 5.9.5 in latest draft

    <dom> [43]Jeff's contribution


    <jeffs> will send better-formatted-for-html versions today for

    <dom> [44]Jeff's contribution on ACTION-719


    DKA: no more actions to review today, any others?

    let's switch to ISSUEs

    <dom> [45]open issues

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

    <dom> ISSUE-237?

    <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-237 -- What is the definition of a "Mobile Web
    Application" for the purposes of BP2? -- OPEN


      [46] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/237

    <dom> [29 messages exchanged on ISSUE-237]

    <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close issue-237

    <dom> [47]Scope of BP2 describes mobile web applications


    DKA: how about mobileOK Basic tests issues?

    srowen: Think they are errata for 1.1 -- can leave on the shelf

    dom: not sure, may need 1.0 discussion

    <dom> [typically, I don't think we can leave mobileOK Basic with
    ISSUE-230 not resolved]

    <dom> ISSUE-229?

    <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-229 -- Scope of mobile web applications best
    practices -- OPEN


      [48] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229

    <dom> +1 to closing ISSUE-229

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-237

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-229

    DKA: ISSUE-226 -- resolved by chartering of Korea TF, so close this

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-226

    <dom> ISSUE-226?

    <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-226 -- Recommendations on how to improve
    relevance of BPs to Korean market -- OPEN


      [49] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/226

    DKA: checker issues?

    srowen: no, don't need group discussion

    DKA: CT issues?

    francois: "Jo's CT Shopping List" is the important issue but Jo's
    not here, not on the agenda

    <dom> [I think ISSUE-210 should be moved to the checker bugzilla]

    (srowen: OK with that --- this is an enhancement request and not
    really an issue, yes)

    (also happy to close ISSUE-214 with 'no')

    <DKA> RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-210

    dom: I'll move it into bugzilla now

    DKA: any other business?

    (none heard)

    <JonathanJ> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 16:36:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC