- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:28:44 +0100
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The great minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
The group resolved to publish as a third Last Call Working Draft the CT
guidelines draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.
Participants of the WG are invited to review the responses to the
reviewers of the previous by Thursday midday GMT:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/
Noted during the call:
- Publication of Mobile Web Application Best Practices as a W3C
Candidate Recommendation was approved. It should happen later this week.
- Tom, Dan and I took an action to investigate whether we could find Web
application candidates that implement some of the best practices. All
the participants are invited to pass the word around once the candidate
recommendation is published: we are looking for implementations of the
Mobile Web Application Best Practices!
- The group is looking for "atomic" implementation reports. In other
words, we do not expect to see all the best practices implemented at
once, but rather to see reports that a mobile web application implements
one or two of the best practices. I am to update the implementation
report template to clarify that point.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
09 Feb 2010
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
DKA, francois, jeffs, EdC, miguel, tomhume, SeanP
Regrets
jo, sangwhan, achuter, brucel, jerome, adam, yeliz
Chair
DKA
Scribe
EdC
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Mobile Web Application Best Practices
2. [5]CT guidelines
3. [6]CT Replies to comments
4. [7]AOB
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Mobile Web Application Best Practices
Francois on the transition call. The transition to candidate
recommendation accepted. Publication expected Thursday.
The group should not expect implementation feedback to flow in on
its own, some action plan is required.
<DKA> Francois: We had a "great" transition call.
General congratulation to everybody.
DKA asks how such an action plan would look like. Francois has a
template for providing implementation feedback ready.
<francois> [9]MWABP Implementation report template
[9] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report-template
It is derived from the corresponding implementation report for
mobile web app best practices 1.0.
DKA asks whether it makes sense to have a fail? Not all aspects of
the document are relevant to all developers.
Francois asks perhaps there was a fundamental reason to have a
"fail" column initially?
DKA states that we are no longer interested in whether
implementations actually cover every single aspect of every
practice, just the ones relevant to their applications.
<francois> ACTION: daoust to update the implementation report
template based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and
emphasize that all of the best practices do not need to be
implemented, that we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two
best practices each time. [recorded in
[10]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1037 - Update the implementation report
template based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and
emphasize that all of the best practices do not need to be
implemented, that we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two
best practices each time. [on François Daoust - due 2010-02-16].
DKA asks who would be able to actually report on the BP, based on
the document? Tom perhaps?
The intention being to get feedback from actual implementations.
DKA impresses upon the members that the W3C wants to get evidence
that the BP are actually used.
DKA asks about getting feedback on the W3C WWW site itself?
Francois will check about the possibility to match BP to actual
implementation -- for instance Mobile checker -- within W3C itself.
DKA will make a post about the BP in order to entice people to
provide feedback on them.
<DKA> e.g. dabr.co.uk
A question: what about Vodafone itself ? Aren't they labs and
developers and apps suitable for feedback?
DKA will check internally and get an implementation.
<francois> ACTION: daoust to look into mobile Web Applications
within W3C that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best
Practices. [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1038 - Look into mobile Web Applications
within W3C that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best
Practices. [on François Daoust - due 2010-02-16].
<francois> ACTION: tom to look into mobile Web Application within
Future Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP
[recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1039 - Look into mobile Web Application
within Future Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP
[on Tom Hume - due 2010-02-16].
<francois> ACTION: dan to make a post about MWABP to entice people
to provide feedback [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1040 - Make a post about MWABP to entice
people to provide feedback [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-02-16].
CT guidelines
Jo made edits on legibility comments from EdC. Draft 1z is
available.
<DKA> Draft 1z (director's cut)
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-draf
ts/Guidelines/100209
[14]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100209
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: request transition for draft 1z of CT
guidelines.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: request transition to Last Call
Working Draft of CT guidelines draft 1z.
<DKA> replies to comments:
[15]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidel
ines-20091006/
[15]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/
Francois says we can take decisions on the draft first, and resolve
on answers to commenters second. We must just make sure the answers
are ok.
If a LC, which period should it be?
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT
guidelines draft 1z; with six weeks comment period.
Francois reminds that 6 weeks is a minimum. This brings us in March.
Francois checks whether the formal minimum is 4 weeks.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT
guidelines draft 1z; with 3 weeks comment period.
Francois peruses the process document, which states 3 weeks comment
period.
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT
guidelines draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.
<DKA> +1
Francois states that 1 month is ok given dependencies with other
groups. The end date is 2010-03-11, which is good.
<francois> +1
+1
<jeffs> +1
<miguel> +1
<tomhume> +1
<francois> [note that jo approved the transition via email]
RESOLUTION: publish as Last Call Working Draft the CT guidelines
draft 1z; with a 4 week comment period.
CT Replies to comments
Francois drafted replies to commenters from the last LC, based on
resolutions in teleconferences and f2f meeting. They will be sent as
soon as the draft is published (Thursday, probably).
Francois exhorts people to check the comments for inconsistencies or
illegible statements.
<EdC:> I looked at the answers, they looked ok, by the way.
Francois raises the issue of ICS.
<francois> [16]new ICS statement
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-100209
There is a small change in the format -- each normative item has an
id. This should ease the implementation of the test suite.
How were the id selected ???
Francois states that the id are hash values of the statements.
In that case, should there be a small note in the ICS stating that
one should not try to derive any semantics from the id?
Francois and DKA remark that the test suite is still to be done, in
any case.
DKA considers that the CT topic is exhausted today.
DKA checks whether there are special actions for the LC. Francois
will use the same list as last time.
The list contains the names of the groups that must be notified of
the LC (TAG among them).
DKA mentions that TAG is working on content tasting (possibly
similar to content sniffing), so TAG must not be forgotten.
<francois> [ The list of reviewers we asked last time was: TAG, HTML
WG, XHTML2 WG, WebApps WG, HCG, Web Security Context WG ]
AOB
Sean is informed of the resolutions (since he joined late in the
call).
The teleconference concludes.
bye
<miguel> bye
<SeanP> bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: dan to make a post about MWABP to entice people to
provide feedback [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to look into mobile Web Applications within W3C
that implement some of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices.
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: daoust to update the implementation report template
based on the discussion, i.e. remove the "fail" column and emphasize
that all of the best practices do not need to be implemented, that
we're looking into "atomic" feedback on one or two best practices
each time. [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: tom to look into mobile Web Application within Future
Platforms and provide implementation report for MWABP [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version 1.135
([22]CVS log)
$Date: 2010/02/09 15:19:20 $
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 15:29:15 UTC