- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:53:47 +0200
- To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of the BP call today are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes (copied as text below)
Among the resolutions taken:
* the group will organize its next and last F2F on December 9 to 11,
either in London (if DKA confirms they can host), or in Darmstadt
* the group agreed to publish the 24 September version of MWABP as a
Last Call Working Draft (yiipee!)
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090924
* the group agreed to publish the addendum to the best practices,
modulo a final edit to the accesskeys section
* the group agreed to publish the CT guidelines as Last Call (pending a
couple of editorial modifications)
Dom
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
29 Sep 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/4AC0A5E7.7030300@mtld.mobi
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
tomhume, jo, jeffs, DKA, brucel, Dom, adam, SeanP, EdC,
chaals, manrique, yeliz
Regrets
Kai, Miguel, Abel, Francois
Chair
Jo
Scribe
DKA, dom
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Final F2F
2. [6]BP2
3. [7]Addendum to BP1
4. [8]BP 1.5
5. [9]The Lovely CT
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Final F2F
<jo> [11]Poll for F2F
[11] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/f2f-nov-2009/
Jo: There has been a poll.
<dom> [12]Results of Poll for next F2F
[12] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/f2f-nov-2009/results
Jo: We have a nominal date and some offers of hosting.
... Vodafone?
<jsmanrique> dom: maybe it is me
Dan: No confirmation as of today.
<jsmanrique> chaals: it is me ;)
Jo: We have offers from Chaals in Norway.
... Reason I am keen on London - it's easy for people to get to.
<jo> (and Darmstadt)
Jo: Firm offers from Norway and Darmstadt.
... survey says: 9-11 December
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: F2F 9-11 in TBD (maybe London on the basis
of Transport costs and ease)
<brucel> + Iceland will be cold
+1
<tomhume> +1
<jeffs> +1
<jsmanrique> +1
<yyesilad> +1
<SeanP> +1
<EdC> Ok.
Dan: I will get back to y'all suckers by tomorrow.
<jo> ACTION: Dan to get back to group on hosting F2F by tomorrow
[recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1016 - Get back to group on hosting F2F by
tomorrow [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2009-10-06].
<chaals> s/suckers, and chaals/
BP2
<dom> [14]Adam's update
[14] http://www.w3.org/mid/393b77970909240813p6287a28epd4605bb169e0bd11@mail.gmail.com
Adam: I've sent in a draft with minor mods from last week -
hopefully it's good to go.
Jo: Any comments in on that yet?
Adam: Not yet.
Jo: Editorial meeting?
Adam: Let's discuss a date...
+1 to dom
<jeffs> I think Dom is right
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to wonder about publishing as LC before
editorial meeting
<jeffs> 24 sept
<jeffs>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
D-mobile-bp2-20090924
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090924
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request publication of 24 Sept draft of
MWABP as Last Call
<jo> +1
<jeffs> +1
<adam> +1
+1
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask what groups we want reviews from and
to ask about deadline for comments
<dom> Dom: I recommend WebApps, DAP, HTML, SVG, maybe CSS, WAI, I18N
Jo: A month seems right to me.
RESOLUTION: Request publication of 24 Sept draft of MWABP as Last
Call
<jeffs> +1
<EdC> +1
RESOLUTION: Request publication of 24 Sept draft of MWABP as Last
Call with a comment period of a month with comments requested from
WebApps, DAP, HTML, SVG, maybe CSS, WAI, I18N
<brucel> "3.5.10 did we have a note r/e accessibility there?
<adam>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/E
D-mobile-bp2-20090924
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090924
Jo: Editorial meeting...
<dom> "In most cases Canvas is faster and should be preferred if it
meets requirements. However, since Canvas generates a flat bitmap it
is not inherently accessible and so should not be used as the sole
means of conveying information. "
<dom> ACTION: Francois to get MWABP published as Last Call and
ensure Chairs announcement is properly sent [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1017 - Get MWABP published as Last Call
and ensure Chairs announcement is properly sent [on François Daoust
- due 2009-10-06].
<jo> ACTION: Adam to call editorial meeting on Friday 9th Oct to
discuss MWABP [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1018 - Call editorial meeting on Friday
9th Oct to discuss MWABP [on Adam Connors - due 2009-10-06].
<brucel> Bruce, must duck out for a few minutes; knock on the door
Addendum to BP1
BP 1.5
Jo: some comments from chaals - some to and fro - and it's
unresolved...
<dom> [19]Charles' suggestion
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0115.html
Dom: To clarify, what decision needs to be made?
<jo> [20]Chaals's proposal ref ACcessKey
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0115.html
<dom> +1 on adopting Charles's suggestion and publish
Jo: either we adopt chaal's suggestion, update and publish or ignore
and publish.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt Chaals's resolution, request update
from editor and publish
+1 if Chaals brings us some ice from iceland.
<EdC> 0
<tomhume> 0
<jsmanrique> +1
<jeffs> "while there is no standard way ..."??
<jeffs> "While there is no standard way... , common techniques
include..."???
<chaals> +1 to chaals comments
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Thanks Chaals for his informed comment but
we decline to adjust the text and request publication as is
<EdC> 0
<jeffs> I think we can put the 2 of them together, his point is
well-taken
<jeffs> "While there is no standard way... , common techniques
include...", for example???
<chaals> -1 to the foolish and reckless proposal to ignore the
brilliant and insightful yet minimal change proposed by chaals
<jsmanrique> :)
RESOLUTION: Adopt Chaals's resolution, request update from editor
and publish
The Lovely CT
<dom> [21]CT latest draft (1v)
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090924
<dom> [22]Charles' point on conformance
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0105.html
Jo: We have a document -
<dom> [23]Charles's point on URI patterns
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0106.html
Jo: ...on which there are some substantive comments...
... ...chaals points out the conformance statement needs to be
mandatory...
... fairly simple change.
... A further suggestion on URI patterns - we have ended up in
debate on the list that it would be better to express the URI
pattern in a known pattern language. I'm happy to make that change.
<dom> [24]Charles' message on "interacting with the user"
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0107.html
Jo: Third point was: "what does interacting with the user actually
mean"?
<dom> [25]Jo's unthreaded reply
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0114.html
Jo: What do we need to put in the document, if anything, to clarify
our intention and our meaning?
... Chaals?
Chaals: <stunned silence>
Jo: Ed can you clarify?
EdC: You mentioned it would be going too far to specify in detail
how the interaction between proxy and user should take place. I
agree - we should keep silent.
Jo: It's probably worth adding a note.
Tom: Chaals mentions 2 possibilities - one is ??? - other is that
proxy generates http responses. If it's the 2nd doesn't that mean
that the proxy could be compliant but the user could not see any
difference?
Jo: We've looked a long time ago at -300 status responses and such.
It's pretty clear that will not work. We mean interacting with the
user "in band." We should clarify that it is "in band" with the
communication with the web site that user is trying to interact
with.
Chaals: I.e. content that is served directly to the user. We may get
objections to that. This is a fairly serious step. Given that all
providers assume that they have no bugs, they are unlikely to want
to interrupt their rendering with a confusing statement...
<EdC> This is not how it is done. In general there is something like
a link with a comment "click here to unmodified content" or so.
Jo: Yes but user does need to be given the option.
<jeffs> user *must* have choice/control
Chaals: There are other mechanisms. This is a substantive issue.
When the user has chosen a preference they should have an
expectation that this preference will be applied.
... If you change your preferences (in Opera Mini) through your UI
preferences settings, is that an "in band" preference dialog?
Jo: Opera mini is out of scope for this document.
Dom: point 1- in interacting with the user it's clear that we meant
"in band" communication. point 2- is this a reasonable requirement
and will we get people to follow that requirement. Chaals is saying
he might object.
... Can we hear from other vendors?
Chaals: Opera software does not provide the in-band notification
that you're asking for and i can't imagine they would...
Jo: One objection people have often taken to proxies is that
operators [of proxies] feel free to insert in-band content...
Chaals: If you're interested in compliance then requirements which
have a direct user experience impact, you need to be clear that
these are necessary...
<EdC> +q
Jo: It's not acceptable for there to be pre-configured proxies,
where signing a t&c gives carte blanche to the proxy operator.
... It's not in scope for us to design the UI or operation of the
product.
<EdC> -q
<Zakim> tomhume, you wanted to find chaals' suggestion on http
response codes more reasonable
Jo: What's in scope is that the product should provide a way for the
user to tell the proxy [to get out of the way]
Chaals: if there is a proxy that is explicitly non-transparent,
adding options on the bottom will not be helpful...
Jo: We're not trying to develop a interface document that referes to
user-cognitive models [?]
<EdC> I think Chaals you should realize that in many cases, users do
not explicitly subscribe to a non-transparent service -- it is
imposed by the operator.
Sean: I agree with Dan - maybe we should leave things the way they
are. What constitutes in-band or out of band - that seems to be hard
to define...
Jo: I agree.
Chaals: 2 issues - does "in band" mean inserted into the rendered
page? If so, there must be some minimum explanation of "inform the
user and allow the user to choose."
Jo: My preference would be to remain silent. 2nd point - if we are
not to remain silent then text needs to say "provide user with a
choice at the point of receipt of the content."
<jeffs> agree that choice should be provided at point of
content-receipt
<EdC> Dan, you mean some for of "interstitial" or "splash" option
setting page?
Dan: "in band" notification could be an interstitial page, as in a
wifi hotspot...
Chaals: it's not nice to have an interstitial. You should be able to
set preferences out of band. Would that be a sufficient solution.
Jo: No I don't think it would be sufficient.
Sean: I think chaals's solution seems Ok as long as there's a link
to it on the page that was sent down...
Jo: Inserting a link so you can change your preferences seems no
less intrusive...
Chaals: What if you had a preferences setting?
EdC: The google wireless transcoder does exactly what Sean said. 2nd
thing - regarding preferences: if you are setting preferences you
are setting them for every possible link traversal. The intent of
the guidelines is that when something exceptional happens, then at
that point the user should be informed (rather than at every
traversal).
Chaals: No because we set per-site preferences anyway.
<EdC> example in section 4.1.5.3 "but must, on receipt of an
indication from a Web site that it offers alternative
representations (see H.1.4.2 Indication of Intended Presentation
Media Type of Representation), inform the user of that and allow
them to select an alternative representation."
<EdC> This is not something that can be done out of band via
preference settings.
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LEave text as is in respect of interacting
with the user
EdC: It'd doesn't mean that out-of-band preferences (e.gg. per site)
should not be used but that it is not sufficient.
<SeanP> +1
<EdC> +1
<jo> +1
+1
<dom> [chaals says +1 on the phone, but noting that this leaves the
possibility for people to claim conformance doing things we simply
don't expect - on the other hand that is not the worst things
possible]
<tomhume> +1
<jo> [26]Sean's Comments
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Sep/0124.html
RESOLUTION: Leave text as is in respect of interacting the user [in
CT]
Jo: In reference to validation to an appropriate published grammar.
Are you asking for that clause to be changed?
<EdC> I believe we went through this, downgraded must to should
validate (catering for if there is no grammar f.ex.), keeping only
well-formed for XML.
Sean: Yes. Seems unrealistic.
... I don't think any of them do that today.
<EdC> See my comment above.
<dom> [I think Sean's point is reasonable indeed]
Sean: HTML typically doesn't validate and sometimes to get it work
the way you want it can't validate...
Jo: Any comments?
<EdC> I believe we went through this, downgraded must to should
validate (catering for if there is no grammar f.ex.), keeping only
well-formed for XML.
<dom> "The altered content should validate according to an
appropriate published formal grammar and if XML must be
well-formed;"
<EdC> This means no published or no formal grammar => no validation.
Otherwise should, but if you have reasons to tweak to make it
work...
Jo: I think this provides plenty of room in the conformance
statement - scope for you to conform but not to validate in certain
cases.
<EdC> Yes. Only XML has a formal definition and separation of
validation and well-formed (the latter being lexically/syntactically
correct).
Sean: OK that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that's what we're
saying.
Jo: Let's leave it as that.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: let's roll
<EdC> Who takes up the editorial comments of SeanP?
Jo: any other comments?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo the two editorial adjustments
inspired by Chaals, (not including user interaction) and Sean's
rightfully critical editorial comments, the group requests
publication of the draft 1v as Last Call
<EdC> Do not forget the ICS...
<EdC> Include it in the resolution...
<dom> ScribeNick: dom
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo the two editorial adjustments
inspired by Chaals, (not including user interaction) and Sean's
rightfully critical editorial comments, the group requests
publication of the draft 1v (together wit the corresponding ICS) as
Last Call
<EdC> +1
+1
<jo> +1
<SeanP> +1
<chaals> 0
[DKA +1 on the phone]
previous list of people asked for comments: TAG, HTML WG, XHTML2 WG,
WebApps WG, HCG , OMA (at least)
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Modulo the two editorial adjustments from
Chaals, (not including user interaction) and Sean's editorial
comments, the group requests publication of the draft 1v (together
wit the corresponding ICS) as Last Call with 4 weeks and request
comments from same list as last time as well as previous LC
commenters
<EdC> +1
<adam> +1
<jo> +1
<SeanP> +1
<brucel> concur
RESOLUTION: Modulo the two editorial adjustments from Chaals, (not
including user interaction) and Sean's editorial comments, the group
requests publication of the draft 1v (together wit the corresponding
ICS) as Last Call with 4 weeks and request comments from same list
as last time as well as previous LC commenters
Jo: 1 month period, same list of groups as before, plus commenters
on previous draft
<scribe> ACTION: Francois to get CT published as Last Call and
ensure chairs announcement [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1019 - Get CT published as Last Call and
ensure chairs announcement [on François Daoust - due 2009-10-06].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Adam to call editorial meeting on Friday 9th Oct to
discuss MWABP [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Dan to get back to group on hosting F2F by tomorrow
[recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Francois to get CT published as Last Call and ensure
chairs announcement [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Francois to get MWABP published as Last Call and
ensure Chairs announcement is properly sent [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [32]scribe.perl version 1.135
([33]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/09/29 14:53:05 $
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 15:00:56 UTC