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

[minutes] September 29 teleconf

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:53:47 +0200
To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1254236027.4708.2576.camel@localhost>
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 Fran├žois 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 Fran├žois 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:02 UTC