W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > August 2009

[minutes] BPWG Teleconference 2009-08-18

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:23:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4A8AB958.3090606@w3.org>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,

The minutes of today's call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2009/08/18-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as text below.

Short call. Discussion around the provisional registration of the X- 
header fields for CT. I will proceed with the provisional registration 
as agreed.

One issue raised: BPWG is currently expected to go to TPAC 2009 in Santa 
Clara (meetings on Tursday and Friday 5-6 November 2009). Do we still 
plan to go?
  http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/Overview.html#Group

Thanks,
Francois.

-----
18 Aug 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Aug/0011.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/18-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           adam, yeliz, francois, DKA, EdC, miguel, SeanP

    Regrets
           jo, kai, brucel, tomhume, abel, nacho

    Chair
           DKA

    Scribe
           EdC

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]CT Guidelines - ACTION-928 - X- headers
          2. [6]CT Guidelines - remaining actions
          3. [7]Addendum to BP (BP1.5) - Status update
          4. [8]MWABP - status update
          5. [9]Actions and Issues
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

CT Guidelines - ACTION-928 - X- headers

    <francois> [11]fd's email

      [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Aug/0010.html

    Francois summarizes the discussion that went on the IETF mailing
    list. We proceed with the registration in the provisional registry.

    The issue is the name: X-Device prefixed fields will probably be
    hard to get accepted in the permanent registry. However, it seems
    that a W3C recommendation may require a permanent registration.

    The net effect: while it is possible to make a provisional
    registration, a permanent registration will require extensive
    discussions with IETF.

    Question from DKA about the transitional period if a new field is
    introduced: there is no way to limit the transition period, both
    deprecated and new fields would have to be supported. Suggestion
    from IETF: register X-Device as deprecated, temporary and a new, non
    X-prefixed set of fields as permanent.

    However, while this is "clean" regarding naming, it does not really
    solve the transition mess.

    Summa summarum: X-Device fields will be temporary registered.
    Depending on the feedback on "last call" on the recommendation, the
    final discussion about the header field will be undertaken.

    Any introduction of a new field is formally tiny, but has large
    implications and we would need a new "last call" to introduce such a
    modification.

    Feedback from IETF about X-prefixed fields is a bit wary. In
    practice, several X-fields are used in production deployment in the
    Internet.

    So, there is still a chance to get X-Device fields permanently
    registered IF a) the usage is clearly explained b) the reason is
    substantiated and clearly motivated. Then the IETF might accept a
    permanent registration of X-Device fields.

    For now: let us register the said fields temporarily.

CT Guidelines - remaining actions

    From DKA: what other main issues are standing before the "last
    call"?

    <francois> ACTION-1001?

    <trackbot> ACTION-1001 -- Fran├žois Daoust to review tests provided
    by Charles on same origin policy -- due 2009-08-18 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1001

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1001

    Answers Francois: a) editorial changes (many assigned to Jo Rabin)
    b) review of tests to check issues on "same URI origin" (on
    Francois).

    c) Sean has actions to review pending changes.

Addendum to BP (BP1.5) - Status update

    One remaining action on Phil (who is not present to report on it).

MWABP - status update

    Lots of progress done on this document. What are the main remaining
    points?

    Answers Adam: a) editorial changes from Edc b) content missing
    regarding canvas/SVG (from Jeff) c) minor editorial alterations
    (Adam).

    a) concerning mainly the last proposal of Adam re: capability
    detection. c) includes feedback awaited from Jonathan.

    <francois> [13]EdC editorial comments on media queries

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Aug/0009.html

    <trackbot>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/990

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/990

    <francois> ACTION-998?

    <trackbot> ACTION-998 -- Adam Connors to extract some useful info
    from the discussion around ACTION-790 and add it to the doc -- due
    2009-07-21 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/998

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/998

    <francois> ACTION-994?

    <trackbot> ACTION-994 -- Daniel Appelquist to find people who use
    CSS media queries to tell whether it's a BP -- due 2009-07-14 --
    CLOSED

    <trackbot>
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/994

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/994

    The idea with 998 / 790 is to insert some warnings regarding the
    possible effect of using Javascript on accessibility (may prevent it
    or make difficult alternative representation).

    <yeliz> Adam, related to ARIA on mobile, there was a discussion
    about it on the WAI-IG:
    [17]http://markmail.org/message/rxytoldjco4cyp44

      [17] http://markmail.org/message/rxytoldjco4cyp44

Actions and Issues

    Francois mentions that we will have to tackle the issue regarding of
    the TPAC. Should we attend or not?

    What would be the reason to hold a meeting in the TPAC if our work
    (CTG, MWABP, etc) is mostly concluded and published?

    From DKA: he will be co-chairing a Web-incubator event, and dealing
    with device API, widget sessions. If the BPWG meets, it would be
    important that the agenda do not conflict (DKA is already very
    booked at the TPAC).

    The issue floats in the air and will be taken back later

    There is currently no issue about this specific topic. Why no create
    one, at least to remind us about it?

    <francois> ISSUE: To go or not to go to TPAC 2009?

    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-299 - To go or not to go to TPAC 2009? ;
    please complete additional details at
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/299/edit .

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/299/edit

    Status for next week: there is a call agreed. Will Jo Rabin be back?
    In principle yes.

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 14:23:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:01 UTC