- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:15:21 +0200
- 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/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
Resolutions taken for the file extension of the mobileOK Checker:
1. Yeliz's code on file support should be listed along with the other
checker code in the library.
2. We should adopt Yeliz's code (the file support extension) as an
official working group output and therefore put it in the same namespace
as the rest of the checker code.
The final namespace for the extension should be
"org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.ext.filesupport".
Francois.
-----
02 Jun 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0002.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
francois, DKA, tomhume, yeliz, nacho, SeanP, brucel
Regrets
adam, sangwhan, miguel, manrique, jo, abel, achuter,
JohnLavery, Bryan, EdC
Chair
DKA
Scribe
francois, DKA
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Comments on MWABP
2. [6]MWBP-WCAG - last draft before Note published
3. [7]mobileOK Checker - namespace
4. [8]XHTML Basic 1.1 rescinded
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Comments on MWABP
DKA: francois, do you want to lead us through these?
->
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2009Apr
Jun/ comments on MWABP
[10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2009AprJun/
francois: comment from Kai on automatic login, already discussed.
Waiting for the group at large to discuss some more.
... next comment from Oracle on AtomDB
... AtomDB seems to match with the general direction we're aiming at
in the BPs.
... We already listed HTML5 offline storage, so it might make sense
to include that in the list. I had never heard of that before,
anyone knows where this comes from?
DKA: wondering if it has to be implemented in the browser, and/or as
an AJAX library. Anyone willing to review AtomDB to see if it could
be included in the list?
tom: raising hand!
dka: thanks!
<scribe> ACTION: tom to review AtomDB for potential
inclusion/reference in MWABP [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-964 - Review AtomDB for potential
inclusion/reference in MWABP [on Tom Hume - due 2009-06-09].
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to suggest this seems reasonable
tom: on the WURFL reference, that sounds reasonable to add it to
MWABP.
dka: yes. We need to see if we're talking a lot about server-side
capabilities.
tom: UAProf is mentioned in the references because it's explicitly
mentioned in the document.
francois: same thing as AtomDB in my view. I just think we need to
draw a line somewhere between being a standard and listing various
implementations to guide authors.
dka: on the server-side detection, we could also remove the section
altogether as we really mean to be talking about client-side stuff.
tom: if we mention UAProf for the same purpose, it does make sense
to mention WURFL as well.
dka: yes. To be clear, if we can be saying useful things for Web
authors that can help server-side detection, let's do it!
MWBP-WCAG - last draft before Note published
-> [12]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mwbp-wcag-20090526/ published
draft of MWBP-WCAG
[12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mwbp-wcag-20090526/
dka: yeliz, status of the document?
yeliz: shawn sent an email about the publication. We're not
expecting major comments on the document
mobileOK Checker - namespace
<DKA> ScribeNick: DKA
Francois: Yeliz (and I) have been working on an extension to the
mobileok checker to support file URI.
... I think it's a good idea to have such extensions listed next to
the checker in the code library.
... The question is: which namespace are we going to use? It makes
sense to use a different namespace. One suggestion is to use a
namespace close to the one we use for the library but there are some
comments that code not developed by the wg should not start with the
same namespace prefix...
... So - are we fine to have the code next to the code in the
library? I think we are.
... 2nd question: which namespace should we use for extensions. I'm
perfectly fine for extensions to be named after the organization
that produced it.
DKA: What namespace would that be?
Francois: Yeliz?
Yeliz: I can use the namespace from manchester university.
Nacho: We think it would be interesting to have the code in the same
CVS web space as the library. The checker TF in a previous meeting
has discussed adding this already. We just had a resource problem
getting it done.
... It's important that this code is close to the code of the
checker. I do not think the issue of the namespace is important.
Francois: I totally agree.
<yeliz> +1
Yeliz: Me too
DKA: Is that another possible course of action - adopting the code
as an official working group output?
Francois: It seems we all agree the code should be listed along with
the library.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Yeliz's code should be listed along with the
library.
<nacho> +1
Francois: another possibility could be to say that this extension
becomes a part of the working group output. This also binds us to
maintain the code.
<Kai> +1
<tomhume> +1
<brucel> concur
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: Yeliz's code on file support should be listed along with
the other checker code in the library.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We should adopt Yeliz's code (the file support
extension) as an official working group output and therefore put it
in the same namespace as the rest of the checker code.
<nacho> +1 to that
<yeliz> +1
<Kai> i am nowhere
<francois> +1
<yeliz> Lost the connection
<Kai> +1
<SeanP> +1
<francois> [+1 to yeliz to write a small note or blog post on how
"easy" it was to extend the library!]
RESOLUTION: We should adopt Yeliz's code (the file support
extension) as an official working group output and therefore put it
in the same namespace as the rest of the checker code.
DKA: It will still be an extension.
<nacho> [+1 to François' +1 to yeliz to write a small note or blog
post on how "easy" it was to extend the library!]
Yeliz: the namespace will be using the .ext extension?
<francois> org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.ext.filesupport
+1
<francois> org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.ext.filesupport
So minuted: We will select the org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.ext.filesupport
namespace for this.
XHTML Basic 1.1 rescinded
DKA: why was this?
Francois: Not because of us.
... Upshot [for us] is that we won't have any lang attribute.
DKA: Do we have any dependencies on the lang attribute?
Francois: There is a mismatch on what we recommend - using xhtml
basic 1.1 - and what the internationalization working group
recommends.
DKA: Punt.
... AOB?
... Let's put the multi-part discussion on the agenda for next week.
Kai: Phil archer has agreed to do an editorial review of the
addendum.
DKA: Great!
... Timeline?
Kai: Yes, a couple of weeks...
<francois> ACTION: phil to make an editorial review of the addendum
[recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - phil
<francois> ACTION: archer to make an editorial review of the
addendum [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - archer
<francois> ACTION: parcher to make an editorial review of the
addendum [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - parcher
<brucel> hugs
<Kai> me waves back
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: archer to make an editorial review of the addendum
[recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: parcher to make an editorial review of the addendum
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: phil to make an editorial review of the addendum
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: tom to review AtomDB for potential inclusion/reference
in MWABP [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 15:15:58 UTC