- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:16:59 +0100
- To: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- CC: public-bpwg@w3.org
Luca Passani wrote:
>
> Thank you, Francois. The fact that calling in is allowed certainly
> reflects positively on W3C.
>
> I know that being remote is a serious disadvantage over being
> physically present, in terms of making one's voice heard, but still it
> is much better than virtually closed doors.
>
> Is this still reserved to BPWG partecipants and invited experts only?
Yes, weekly calls and F2F are reserved to working group participants.
Francois.
>
> thanks
>
> Luca
>
> Francois Daoust ha scritto:
>> Hi Luca,
>>
>> Luca Passani wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Francois
>>>
>>> > CT discussions/resolutions were left for the F2F.
>>>
>>> I am a bit worried about this. As you know, I and others who
>>> represent the viewpoint of content owners have invested considerable
>>> amounts of our time to make sure that the views of certain operators
>>> (Voda, ATT) and certain transcoder vendors (novarra, opera and
>>> openwave) are balanced by our own view in the creation of CTG.
>>
>> As you probably know, your comments, as well as all the other comments
>> we received during the last call review period, and after that, were
>> and are still being heavily discussed by the working group. That
>> explains why comments we received more than 6 months ago are still
>> unanswered at this point. We haven't forgotten about them.
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately, it appears that all of those who represent this
>>> counter-viewpoint (including me, of course, but I am ot part of BPWG,
>>> anyway) will be unable to fly to the F2F simply because they do not
>>> have a company which will/can sponsor their partecipation.
>>
>> Who are you referring to?
>>
>> Looking at the list of participants to the upcoming F2F, the usual
>> persons involved in CT matters in the working group will be there.
>> Eduardo is the exception to the rule here. I strongly hope he can join
>> remotely and that attending remotely won't be a bad experience. I
>> trust him to raise his hand if that's the case. I trust the rest of
>> the participants to listen to him even if they can't actually see him.
>> And I trust participants who would happen not to be able to join the
>> F2F to yell against resolutions we might take during the F2F.
>>
>> F2F are an important part of a Working Group's life. Experience shows
>> that much progress is made during such F2Fs. We are trying to find a
>> good balance between weekly calls, work on mailing-lists and F2F so
>> that all participants can contribute to the working group. F2Fs allow
>> to spend more time on a given topic. We plan to spend a full day on CT.
>>
>>
>>> In short, there is a high risk, that all the investment in
>>> participating in the discussion over several months is made void when
>>> resourceful corporations pay to get their people to physically seat
>>> behind the same table and take decisions which ignore the viewpoint
>>> which others had expressed previously.
>>>
>>> Question: How does W3C plan to make sure that this does not happen?
>>
>> By following the usual process.
>>
>> Whatever the resolutions taken during the F2F may be, we will have to:
>>
>> 1. formally reply to all the comments that were received during the
>> last call for review period (which include yours). This means you will
>> be asked whether you agree with the decision of the group or not.
>> Should you disagree, you would then have the possibility to raise a
>> formal objection as explained in the Process Document:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection
>> The Working Group would then have to justify its rationale to the
>> Director who would take a final decision.
>>
>> 2. publish another Last Call Working Draft of the Content
>> Transformation Guidelines associated with another call for review
>> period, where you would have the possibility to raise additional
>> comments and objections.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Francois.
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> Luca
>>>
>>> Francois Daoust ha scritto:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The minutes of today's call are available at:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html
>>>> ... and copied as text below.
>>>>
>>>> In short:
>>>> - we discussed next week's F2F agenda, see:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/London3/logistics.html
>>>>
>>>> - we discussed the possibility to add file:// support to the
>>>> mobileOK Checker:
>>>> * I am to see what needs to be changed in the library to be able to
>>>> keep a "clean" reference implementation extended for the file://
>>>> needs. I'll present my results during the F2F.
>>>> * We welcome Abel, Miguel and Nacho's proposal to work on a
>>>> possible WG note on applying mobileOK tests to files (we should
>>>> probably agree on the changes to make to the core library before we
>>>> start working on the WG note though).
>>>>
>>>> - CT discussions/resolutions were left for the F2F.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Francois.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 17 Mar 2009
>>>>
>>>> [2]Agenda
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0112.html
>>>>
>>>> See also: [3]IRC log
>>>>
>>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-irc
>>>>
>>>> Attendees
>>>>
>>>> Present
>>>> francois, jo, tomhume, Bryan_Sullivan, rob, yeliz, dstorey,
>>>> SeanP, jeffs, jsmanrique
>>>>
>>>> Regrets
>>>> adam, abel, miguel, manrique, Dom
>>>>
>>>> Chair
>>>> jo
>>>>
>>>> Scribe
>>>> tomhume
>>>>
>>>> Contents
>>>>
>>>> * [4]Topics
>>>> 1. [5]F2F London 25-27 March
>>>> 2. [6]mobileOK Checker - discussion of file: scheme URIs
>>>> 3. [7]CT Guidelines New Version
>>>> 4. [8]BP Addendum - Next Steps
>>>> 5. [9]AOB
>>>> * [10]Summary of Action Items
>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> F2F London 25-27 March
>>>>
>>>> <francois> [11]F2F agenda
>>>>
>>>> [11]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/London3/logistics.html
>>>>
>>>> jo: Idea is to spend Wednesday on MWABP, Thursday on CT, tidying up
>>>> on Friday
>>>> ... including tidying up remaining mobile accessibility issues,
>>>> checker library, etc.
>>>>
>>>> yeliz: will be there on Friday
>>>>
>>>> jo: we have mobileOK scheme
>>>>
>>>> francois: not heard from Rigo, hope to have something by the F2F
>>>>
>>>> jo: need to ping Korean folks for a written update
>>>>
>>>> <EdC> three questions about the agenda: (1) are the times indicated
>>>> local UK time? (2) any detailed schedule? (3) numbers for
>>>> teleconference?
>>>>
>>>> bryan: I shan't be there in person, conf call bridge would be good.
>>>>
>>>> <jo> ACTION: JO to talk to Adam about getting a conf bridge set up
>>>> for f2f [recorded in
>>>> [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
>>>>
>>>> <trackbot> Created ACTION-915 - Talk to Adam about getting a conf
>>>> bridge set up for f2f [on Jo Rabin - due 2009-03-24].
>>>>
>>>> francois: will ping Rigo
>>>>
>>>> jo: times of the agenda are in GMT
>>>>
>>>> mobileOK Checker - discussion of file: scheme URIs
>>>>
>>>> jo: Adam's issued 2 new drafts for MWABP
>>>>
>>>> francois: the mobileOK checker libraries only apply to HTTP/HTTPS
>>>> URI schemes. There could be a useful use case where you want to run
>>>> tests on a file. Most web content is local before it's published.
>>>>
>>>> <yeliz> sorry about the echo, it seems like there is something wrong
>>>> with my connection today :(
>>>>
>>>> francois: you might want to check it before you publish it. Some of
>>>> the tests do not mean anything outside of HTTP(S), some do and are
>>>> useful - e.g. page size
>>>> ... Yeliz can probably talk about it, I wanted to update the checker
>>>> library and add the possibility to check files. We've discussed a
>>>> little on the checker mailing lists and have some ideas for how to
>>>> add support for file:// URIs. It would mean that the library
>>>> contains code that is not defined in the standard, in particular an
>>>> additional test outcome ("CANNOTTELL")
>>>> ... but it's not mobileOK if it's not in the standard, as Jo has
>>>> pointed out. The Java library is supposed to be a reference
>>>> implementation of the standard, so I don't know if we can extend it
>>>> with something outside of the standard.
>>>> ... We wanted to get the WGs opinion. Do we need to duplicate the
>>>> code and work on a separate version of the library? Or can we
>>>> incorporate the changes and add file:// scheme support to the
>>>> library?
>>>> ... We might want to issue another document explaining how to test
>>>> file://
>>>>
>>>> <EdC> Can you parameterize the library with a switch for "standard
>>>> mobileOK" and "development mode"? Via a configuration file, for
>>>> instance?
>>>>
>>>> francois: I think it's useful for us to go ahead with this. Abel
>>>> proposed to write the WG Note. I'm not sure we need to do this.
>>>>
>>>> jo: I agree
>>>>
>>>> <Zakim> Bryan, you wanted to why not run a local server
>>>> ([13]http://localhost) instead - this is easy?
>>>>
>>>> [13] http://localhost)/
>>>>
>>>> bryan: a consistent scheme is a good idea. All you can do with
>>>> file:// is check a static page, which isn't very common in terms of
>>>> real live applications
>>>>
>>>> jo: the point about mobileOK is that it tests the operation of your
>>>> server when serving content - i.e. in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> bryan: that's my point
>>>>
>>>> yeliz: we want to combine the mobileOK library with another for
>>>> validating documents. It would be good to use some of the mobileOK
>>>> tests with local files. This could be used for other people (e.g.
>>>> designers) wanting to check documents before they upload them. e.g.
>>>> the HTML validator lets you upload and validate a doc.
>>>> ... you can't do all the tests, but a CANNOTTELL would accommodate
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> <yeliz> sorry about the echo:(
>>>>
>>>> <EdC> question: is the file:// scheme used in some Web applications
>>>> to access the local storage?
>>>>
>>>> <jo> jo: wondering if there is a way of leaving the reference
>>>> implementation intact and dealing with file: scheme by subclassing?
>>>>
>>>> <Bryan> fyi I have to go on IRC only for the next hour - will be
>>>> back asap
>>>>
>>>> francois: I had the same idea - we could do this without altering
>>>> the ref. implementation. There are a couple of things we can do, but
>>>> it can't be done completely by subclassing.
>>>>
>>>> <EdC> question: is the file:// scheme used in some Web applications
>>>> to access the local storage? If yes, shouldn't the scheme be dealt
>>>> with in the test harness?
>>>>
>>>> francois: I would like to keep the ref. implementation clean
>>>>
>>>> ed: if file:/// is used by web applications, the harness should
>>>> handle it surely?
>>>>
>>>> jo: mobileOK only tests http(s) URIs
>>>>
>>>> <jo> ACTION: daoust to prepare some material for F2F identifying
>>>> what changes would be needed to the mobileOK checker to allow
>>>> subclassing for file: scheme handling [recorded in
>>>> [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
>>>>
>>>> <trackbot> Created ACTION-916 - Prepare some material for F2F
>>>> identifying what changes would be needed to the mobileOK checker to
>>>> allow subclassing for file: scheme handling [on François Daoust -
>>>> due 2009-03-24].
>>>>
>>>> jo: if Abel, Miguel and Nacho would like to write a note, we'd be
>>>> happy for them to do it
>>>>
>>>> francois: maybe we should make sure they're not working on something
>>>> we might abandon first...
>>>>
>>>> yeliz: what's involved in writing a note about this?
>>>>
>>>> jo: the idea would be to write a WG Note (informative doc, not
>>>> recommendation) pointing out the differences in the tests
>>>>
>>>> <yeliz> yes, thanks
>>>>
>>>> <yeliz> :)
>>>>
>>>> CT Guidelines New Version
>>>>
>>>> jo: new version posted on Friday 13th. Francois has noted some typos
>>>> - thankyou - and there are lots of outstanding issues, which I've
>>>> yet to post.
>>>>
>>>> <francois> [15]CT announcement by Jo
>>>>
>>>> [15]
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0103.html
>>>>
>>>> jo: these will hopefully get out today/soon
>>>> ... unless anyone has anything to say about this now, we should
>>>> defer til next week
>>>> ... (at the F2F). Sean, Rob? You may want to comment on HTTPS link
>>>> rewriting or link rewriting
>>>>
>>>> rob: happy to keep that for the list
>>>>
>>>> seanP: I need to look it over a bit
>>>>
>>>> jo: hoping to resolve this issue (the main outstanding one, tho
>>>> there are others we need to go back on, in particular Eduardo's
>>>> point re changing/replacing headers)
>>>>
>>>> ed: happy to deal with this and the other topics next week
>>>>
>>>> <francois> [I note I'll have a bit to report on X-Device-headers
>>>> next week based on a discussion with IETF]
>>>>
>>>> francois: are you thinking we misunderstood what a same-document
>>>> reference is?
>>>>
>>>> jo: either I've misunderstood what they mean or it doesn't quite
>>>> work
>>>>
>>>> BP Addendum - Next Steps
>>>>
>>>> jo: the poll said no-one was happy for it to advance to a WG Note
>>>> ... so there's more work to do. Kai's not on the call today. I've
>>>> scheduled half a days editorial session on this on Friday pm
>>>> ... we need to check Kai will be there for that
>>>> ... the November questionnaire hasn't been answered much
>>>>
>>>> francois: we only have 1 day left to answer the poll
>>>>
>>>> <Bryan> jo, post the questionairre link please
>>>>
>>>> jo: wondering if more folks can attend the F2F if it's not in San
>>>> Diego
>>>>
>>>> <Bryan> I prefer San Diego!
>>>>
>>>> jo: can we reopen this questionnaire with the additional answer "I
>>>> could attend if it's elsewhere"
>>>>
>>>> <EdC> "if it's elsewhere" is really a bit vague. Most answers will
>>>> be "I do not know"...
>>>>
>>>> jo: if we're to extend the charter we need another F2F. It'll either
>>>> need to be there, or somewhere else.
>>>>
>>>> <jo> ACTION: daoust to extend the TPAC Noc Questionnaire and add a
>>>> question to assess whether the meeting would be better attended if
>>>> it was held somewhere else [recorded in
>>>> [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
>>>>
>>>> <trackbot> Created ACTION-917 - Extend the TPAC Noc Questionnaire
>>>> and add a question to assess whether the meeting would be better
>>>> attended if it was held somewhere else [on François Daoust - due
>>>> 2009-03-24].
>>>>
>>>> jo: there won't be a call next Tuesday because of the F2F and we
>>>> don't usually have calls post-F2F unless someone wants one. So no
>>>> call on 31.03
>>>>
>>>> <EdC> You mean 7th of April...
>>>>
>>>> jo: We will be back to normal time for everyone on 7 April.
>>>>
>>>> AOB
>>>>
>>>> <Bryan> jo, can you post the questionaire link, I can't find it on
>>>> the BPWG homepage
>>>>
>>>> <jeffs> bye
>>>>
>>>> <jeffs> quit
>>>>
>>>> <Bryan> oh well
>>>>
>>>> <jsmanrique> bye
>>>>
>>>> <jo> bryan - francois will re-post to the list
>>>>
>>>> <francois> and will update the WG home page to link to it, yes.
>>>>
>>>> Summary of Action Items
>>>>
>>>> [NEW] ACTION: daoust to extend the TPAC Noc Questionnaire and add a
>>>> question to assess whether the meeting would be better attended if
>>>> it was held somewhere else [recorded in
>>>> [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
>>>> [NEW] ACTION: daoust to prepare some material for F2F identifying
>>>> what changes would be needed to the mobileOK checker to allow
>>>> subclassing for file: scheme handling [recorded in
>>>> [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
>>>> [NEW] ACTION: JO to talk to Adam about getting a conf bridge set up
>>>> for f2f [recorded in
>>>> [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
>>>>
>>>> [End of minutes]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 08:17:41 UTC