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

[minutes] September 15 teleconf

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:36:06 +0200
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1253025366.18954.1534.camel@localhost>
Hi,

The minutes of our call today are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html
and copied as text below.

Among the decisions taken today:
 * BPWG won't meet at TPAC after all, and might be having a F2F
mid-November or early December in Europe

 * the road to publishing the Mobile Web Application Best Practices as
last call has been nearly cleared, with hopefully a last week of
internal review starting next week, for a possible last call the week
after

 * the addendum to bp 1.0 is going to be published as a Working Group
note next week unless objections are raised before next call

 * some of the CT vendors rep will check if they can get tests
contributions from their companies to help build a test suite around the
content transformation guidelines

Dom

        Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

15 Sep 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/4AAF3F18.5020409@mtld.mobi

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          jeffs, brucel, Dom, Yeliz miguel, EdC, adam, SeanP, jo

   Regrets
          Francois, Dan, Kai, PhilA, Manrique, Alan, Ignacio, Abel, Tom

   Chair
          Jo

   Scribe
          Ed

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]F2F meeting (ISSUE-299)
         2. [6]Integration of MobileOK Checker into Eclipse
         3. [7]MWABP 2.
         4. [8]BP 1.5.
         5. [9]CT guidelines
         6. [10]ISSUE-296
         7. [11]Action items review
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

F2F meeting (ISSUE-299)

   <dom> [13]Results of survey on F2F meeting at TPAC

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/tpac2009-2/results

   <jeffs> will hopefully know later this week if I will be in Trinidad
   in November & thus unable to attend the TPAC/F2F or in the States &
   attending

   Topic F2F meeting. Results of the survey indicate that it is not
   going to take place as originally planned.

   <dom> ACTION: francois to cancel TPAC F2F for BPWG [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-1004 - Cancel TPAC F2F for BPWG [on
   Fran├žois Daoust - due 2009-09-22].

   <scribe> New objective is to find an place in Europe and a suitable
   date. Is it an urgent task?

   Dom: decisions must be made 8 weeks in advance.

   Jo: tentatively week on the 16th November.
   ... provide an alternative in Europe early December.

   <dom> ACTION: Francois to set up a survey to find dates for F2F,
   either week of Nov 16, Nov 30 or Dec 7, and ask for hosting offers
   in Europe [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-1005 - Set up a survey to find dates for
   F2F, either week of Nov 16, Nov 30 or Dec 7, and ask for hosting
   offers in Europe [on Fran├žois Daoust - due 2009-09-22].

   Jo: we must action Francois to make yet another poll (2009-11-16, or
   2009-11-30, or possibly 2009-12-07).

Integration of MobileOK Checker into Eclipse

   <dom> [16]Yeliz message on wrapping mobileOK checker for Eclipse

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2009Sep/0004.html

   Jo: current proposal is to provide a plugin for Eclipse into the
   source-control tree of mobileOk checker.

   Yeliz: This is a proposal to solve issues with external libraries.
   ... this requires additional files, but does not entail code change.

   <dom> [sounds good to me]

   Jo: no resolution required, but personally the feeling is to go
   ahead and do it.

   Yeliz: will go on with the work and implementing the plugin.

MWABP 2.

   <dom> [17]Adam's plea for a resolution on SVG and canvas

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0019.html

   Adam: major topic remaining is SVG/Canvas. We should arrive at a
   consensus soon in order to finalize the document.

   Jo: Is there a proposed resolution? There has been discussion going
   on.

   <brucel> permission to speak?

   Adam: Not being an expert on Canvas, difficult to settle alone the
   matter. Jeff and EdC have expressed their opinion, might propose
   something.

   Bruce: canvas accessibility is limited. SVG is currently more
   accessible than canvas, worth a clear mention in the text.

   <jo> [18]Eduardo's Proposed Text

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html

   <jeffs> yes, svg is more accessible like is avail to DOM

   <jeffs> worth adding

   Jo: not much feedback on that text. Except for Rotan.

   <brucel> ok, will feedback to Edouardo's text before end of week

   <brucel> (had escaped my attention previously)

   Adam: the text is too detailed and long, but can serve as a starting
   point.

   <jeffs> suggestion: whoever rewrites adds accessibility statement

   <dom> ACTION: Bruce to send feedback on Eduardo's proposal on Canvas
   & SVG
   [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
   l - due September 18 [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-1006 - send feedback on Eduardo's proposal
   on Canvas & SVG
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
   l [on Bruce Lawson - due 2009-09-18].

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html

   Jo: we do not mention proprietary technologies explicitly, though we
   may mention that some exist.

   <jeffs> +1

   Jo: so explicit mentions of proprietary technologies should be
   eliminated.

   +1

   Adam: we are almost there with the document.

   <Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask about last call eta?

   Jeff: suggest that accessibility issues must be included in the
   draft.

   Dom: what is remaining to be done before a last call?

   Jo: a resolution of the group is required.

   <dom> [22]11 open action items on mwabp

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

   Dom: However, there are quite a number of issues/actions remaining
   to be discharged. What is the situation?

   Adam: we nailed many of them last time we went through. Unclear
   about what is blocking the cleanup of the action items.

   Dom: Somebody should go systematically through these items and check
   them carefully.
   ... When is a draft expected to be ready?

   Adam: by the end of the week.

   Dom: hopefully we can decide upon a last call next week during the
   teleconference.

BP 1.5.

   <dom> [23]Latest editors draft of BP 1.5

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090914

   Jo: there is a draft. Next step is to agree to launch a last call.

   <jeffs> +1

   Jo: people should review over the next week
   ... let us plan to take a final resolution on it next week.

CT guidelines

   Jo: shows contrition at not having moved forward with his action
   points.
   ... Francois made a call for tests. No progress has been reported in
   this area.

   <jo> claiming sickness and worse fo not being ale to carry out his
   action points ...

   Dom: Regarding the call for tests, a possible source would be to ask
   CT vendors (Google, Novarra, etc). Do they have test suites that
   they could contribute to W3C?
   ... If so, we could make a lot of progress faster.

   <dom> ACTION: Sean to check if novarra has tests they could
   contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-1007 - Check if novarra has tests they
   could contribute for CT guidelines [on Sean Patterson - due
   2009-09-22].

   SeanP: Might have a few tests, but not all relevant or really
   suitable for the CT.

   Dom: Bruce and Adam could perhaps check within their organization
   about availability of test suites.

   <dom> ACTION: Adam to check if Google has tests they could
   contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-1008 - Check if Google has tests they
   could contribute for CT guidelines [on Adam Connors - due
   2009-09-22].

   <brucel> will do.

   <dom> ACTION: Bruce to check if Opera has tests they could
   contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-1009 - Check if Opera has tests they could
   contribute for CT guidelines [on Bruce Lawson - due 2009-09-22].

ISSUE-296

   Jo: Contribution of Jonathan was answered by Jeff.

   Jeff: The basic idea: there is a change in the mobile environment.
   Current mindset in W3C is general phone / feature phone. Jonathan
   contends that smartphone should now be the primary target for
   standardization.

   Jo: We have discussed the topic many time. We are considering about
   a device with basic Web capabilities -- not specific form factors.
   ... It is basically ok to refer to the capabilities corresponding to
   those of feature phones, but this does not mean that we are
   focussing on those specific models of phones.
   ... We must note that there are mobiles that are not phones, but
   that have Web capabilities.

   <dom> ISSUE-296?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-296 -- "feature phone vs. smartphone, which
   handsets will make large web traffic ?" -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/296

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/296

   Jeff: What is needed is to take into account developments that
   render phones are no longer just Web-capable devices, but handsets
   endowed with further capabilities (e.g. location). And these are
   becoming widespread -- and thus should be the target of
   standardization.

   Jo: Careful about the charter: we deal with mobile Web best
   practices -- not mobile phones best practices.

   Jeff: This is something to keep in mind as we reach the end of the
   current activities.

   Jo: To close this issue -- a resolution.

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-296 recognising that Jonathan
   makes an important point about the growth of smartphone as opposed
   to feature phone but that the BPWG is about Mobile Devices not
   mobile phones specifically, so we must take into account minimal Web
   access capability from any device, not just phones, important though
   that is

   <dom> (works for me)

   <SeanP> +1

   +1

   <miguel> +1

   RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-296 recognising that Jonathan makes an
   important point about the growth of smartphone as opposed to feature
   phone but that the BPWG is about Mobile Devices not mobile phones
   specifically, so we must take into account minimal Web access
   capability from any device, not just phones, important though that
   is

   <jo> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-296 recognising that Jonathan makes an
   important point about the growth of smartphone as opposed to feature
   phone but that the BPWG is about Mobile Devices not mobile phones
   specifically, so we must take into account minimal Web access
   capability from any device, not just phones, important though that
   is

   <dom> close ISSUE-296

   <trackbot> ISSUE-296 "feature phone vs. smartphone, which handsets
   will make large web traffic ?" closed

   <jeffs> is this true? "BPWG is about Mobile Devices not mobile
   phones specifically"

   <jeffs> hmmmmmm

   <jeffs> move on

   Jo: Let us look at pending issues and actions.

Action items review

   <dom> [28]Action items related to MWABP

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

   <jo> [29]Open Actions on BP2

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

   <jo> ACTION-873?

   <trackbot> ACTION-873 -- Daniel Appelquist to provide some words on
   conservative use of resources -- due 2008-10-28 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/873

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/873

   Adam: 873 may well be obsolete.

   <dom> close ACTION-873

   <trackbot> ACTION-873 Provide some words on conservative use of
   resources closed

   <dom> ACTION-911?

   <trackbot> ACTION-911 -- Jeffrey Sonstein to get Prof. Bogaard at
   RIT to review SVG materials and suggest how/if to address in BP --
   due 2009-03-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/911

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/911

   Jeff: nothing more is really needed at this point. We can close it.

   <dom> close ACTION-911

   <trackbot> ACTION-911 Get Prof. Bogaard at RIT to review SVG
   materials and suggest how/if to address in BP closed

   <dom> ACTION-918?

   <trackbot> ACTION-918 -- Daniel Appelquist to write a relevant
   section at Webapps Wiki to act as reference for On MWABP 1.3.2 DKA
   -- due 2009-04-01 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/918

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/918

   <dom> close ACTION-918

   <trackbot> ACTION-918 Write a relevant section at Webapps Wiki to
   act as reference for On MWABP 1.3.2 DKA closed

   <dom> ACTION-924?

   <trackbot> ACTION-924 -- Daniel Appelquist to and Jeffs to wander
   the highways and byways of SVG and Canvas and cook something up for
   the group's approval -- due 2009-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/924

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/924

   <jeffs> 924 and 958 are really the same thing

   <dom> close ACTION-924

   <trackbot> ACTION-924 And Jeffs to wander the highways and byways of
   SVG and Canvas and cook something up for the group's approval closed

   <dom> ACTION-957?

   <trackbot> ACTION-957 -- Adam Connors to draft a BP on login forms
   adapting previous resolutions on the topic for discussion -- due
   2009-05-05 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/957

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/957

   Jeff: this is done -- being properly baked by Adam.

   <dom> close ACTION-957

   <trackbot> ACTION-957 Draft a BP on login forms adapting previous
   resolutions on the topic for discussion closed

   <dom> ACTION-958?

   <trackbot> ACTION-958 -- Jeffrey Sonstein to review some of the 3.4
   & 3.5 examples from the perspective of the average developer and
   report -- due 2009-05-18 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/958

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/958

   <jeffs> I think this should be closed

   <dom> close ACTION-958

   <trackbot> ACTION-958 Review some of the 3.4 & 3.5 examples from the
   perspective of the average developer and report closed

   Jeff: it was so long ago, no longer relevant.

   <dom> ACTION-964?

   <trackbot> ACTION-964 -- Tom Hume to review AtomDB for potential
   inclusion/reference in MWABP -- due 2009-06-09 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/964

   Jo: leave this action open till Tom can report.

   <dom> ACTION-997?

   <trackbot> ACTION-997 -- Adam Connors to write first text based on
   the listserve discussion of Media Queries -- due 2009-07-21 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/997

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/997

   Adam: done.

   <dom> close ACTION-997

   <trackbot> ACTION-997 Write first text based on the listserve
   discussion of Media Queries closed

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

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

   <dom> ACTION-790?

   <trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Alan Chuter to produce some text around
   accessibility of Javascript for Web Application Best Practices --
   due 2008-07-03 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot>
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/790

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/790

   Jo: Accessibility of Javascript. Do we have anything on that.

   <dom> [40]Alan's proposal on accessibility of javascript

     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0081.html

   Adam: kind of unclear; screen readers have problems with
   Javascript-based content. Thorough experimentation is missing.

   Jo: Combine this with the accessibility of canvas?

   <brucel> too disparate

   Adam: they are separate topics (though canvas is essentially
   Javascript).

   <jeffs> generalized statement(s) about lack of interaction between
   JavaScript-based technologies and acessibility needs might work

   Bruce: the concept of live regions might help. There is a W3C method
   to go around the issues of Javascript with screen readers.

   Adam: a reference to that work with a note about how to deal with
   the impact of Javascript on usability might be good.

   Jo: so this is the new interpretation of 998.

   <dom> ACTION-1003?

   <trackbot> ACTION-1003 -- Bruce Lawson to follow up within Opera as
   to what exactly the XSS test scripts supplied by chaals guard
   against -- due 2009-09-08 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1003

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1003

   Bruce: no feedback yet, but reply is expected soon.
   ... No feedback yet on action 1006, but Adam is editing the document
   anyway. We should note that SVG is xml and text, so is accessible
   (potentially). Canvas has no DOM and so accessibility hooks.

   <dom> close ACTION-1006

   <trackbot> ACTION-1006 send feedback on Eduardo's proposal on Canvas
   & SVG
   [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
   l closed

     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html

   Jo: only two items left on MWABP.

   <jo> [43]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/open

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

   Jo: several actions left on CTG (most of the items remaining in the
   list). I will progress with them, and we can tidy them up from next
   week onwards.
   ... AOB?
   ... the meeting is concluded. Next week, let us take a resolution on
   BP, and review MWABP.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Adam to check if Google has tests they could
   contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: Bruce to check if Opera has tests they could
   contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
   [NEW] ACTION: Bruce to send feedback on Eduardo's proposal on Canvas
   & SVG
   [46]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.htm
   l - due September 18 [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: francois to cancel TPAC F2F for BPWG [recorded in
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Francois to set up a survey to find dates for F2F,
   either week of Nov 16, Nov 30 or Dec 7, and ask for hosting offers
   in Europe [recorded in
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Sean to check if novarra has tests they could
   contribute for CT guidelines [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

     [46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0017.html

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 14:36:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC