- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:43:26 +0200
- To: BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw meat below.
Resolution taken on the Mobile Web Application Best Practices and best practices 5. and 6. about informing user and allowing him to control the use of the network in a Web application:
If we can't dig up implementation reports for these 2 by 30 June (prior to next call) then we will drop - otherwise we will remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to PR with these demoted to strong advisory note.
Resolution taken on extending the charter:
The group requests a 4-month extension to bring the guidelines and the Mobile Web Application Best Practices to Recommendation.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
22 Jun 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jun/0010.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
DKA, francois, jeffs, jo, miguel, SeanP
Regrets
tomhume, yeliz, brucel
Chair
Jo
Scribe
Dan
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Mobile Web Application Best Practices
2. [6]Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
3. [7]Charter Extension
4. [8]AOB?
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Mobile Web Application Best Practices
Jo: Francois?
Francois: Kai sent a new implementation report which is really good
because it turned many yellow lights into green.
<francois> [10]Status of MWABP
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jun/0009.html
THANKS KAI!
Francois: there remain a few best practices for which we are lacking
implementation reports. We need to decide what we do with that.
Either we decide to remove a couple of BPs form the document,
republish a LCWG then jump to PR after ~3 werks -OR- we think we
will find reports for the remaining best practices and we find new
implementation reports out there.
Jo: What's your considered opinion and advice?
Francois: I would publish another LC and remove BPs 5 "auto network
access" and 6 "providing means to control auto network access". I am
less worried about the remaining orange lights.
<EdC> Two questions:
Francois: There is number 28 - but we have 3 different partial
implementations...
... we have something.
EdC: Questions to clear up - how was decided an implementation was
partial vs complete; 2nd: wrt BP 29 - some of those practices are
recommended if you look at Apple documentation. Do we really need
more implementation reports to give them substance?
Francois: first answer - it's an informative document so it's
submitted on a declarative basis (implementors have declared that
they are partial or full), when we move this from CR to PR the
director may dig further, W3C members may also look at
implementation reports and dig further. Nothing for the group to
review.
... second point: on BP29 - we already have 4 partial
implementations - it would be good if we could have an independent
web developer implementation report.
... it would be better to have only greens...
Jo: Any other views?
<francois> DKA: I'd like to minimize the things we drop from the
spec.
<francois> ... can we move things we drop to an appendix?
<jeffs> this seems a sane approach
DKA: and I do support the idea of dropping, going back to LC, etc...
- if it means we finish the work here.
Jo: I also think we should take 5 and 6 out (tho these are
important) and we should put it in an appendix because these are
important...
Ed: Where did these come from in the first place?
<jeffs> I am pretty uncomfortable removing nr 5 and nr 6 as they are
central privacy issues
Jeff can you point us to implementations of these that could provide
implementation reports?
<Zakim> francois, you wanted to take an action
Jo: I think these were around from first draft.
Francois: I could take an action to investigate but I think you're
right - they were in the first draft.
<jeffs> I will have to go look and get back to you, I need to
separate webapp implementations out to reply clearly
Francois: Next step is to resolve on something and give the rest of
the group one week to review?
<jeffs> can we hold off on this until we can get input from Adam
please?
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for
these 2 by XXX then we will drop - otherwise we will remove and go
back to LC with intention to jump to PR with these dropped.
Jeff: I think [5 and 6] are central privacy issues. Off the top of
my head I can think of a number of implementations in webapp context
- I need to go back and review.
Jo: I'm with you in spirit.
<EdC> My point is that these two BP must have been proposed for a
good reason, and we should be able to trace it to a background
document prior to the redaction of the BP document itself.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for
these 2 by 30 June (prior to next call) then we will drop -
otherwise we will remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to
PR with these dropped.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeff to help find 2 implementations of 5 and 6 by
30 June. [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1050 - Help find 2 implementations of 5
and 6 by 30 June. [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2010-06-29].
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for
these 2 by 30 June (prior to next call) then we will drop -
otherwise we will remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to
PR with these demoted to strong advisory note.
<jeffs> I agree w change to "advisory note" instead of "drop"
<jo> +1
+1
<jeffs> +1
<EdC> +1
<francois> +1
RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for these 2 by
30 June (prior to next call) then we will drop - otherwise we will
remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to PR with these
demoted to strong advisory note.
Jo: AOB on BP2?
... How long does it have to remain in LC this time around?
Francois: 3 weeks minimum
Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
Jo: We've all been celebrating wildly.
[some discussion of the key areas of the transition call]
Francois: We should celebrate Jo.
... Output of call was regarding implementation reports - requires
group to comment on implementation reports...
EdC: What kind of comments are expected?
Jo: Left open.
Francois: That's a good question. Suggest we wait and see if we
manage to get implementation reports.
... suggest we take this discussion to an appropriate time.
Jo: Allow me to paraphrase -when we discussed the nature of the
implementation reports, it became clearer that we were talking about
self-certification.. There is nothing we've said about
implementation reports that prevents people from submitting reports
with none of the SHOULDs implemented and no or little text
provided...
<EdC> So in practice, two aspects to check (formally) are: are all
questions answered; are non-implemented items properly justified.
Jo: it's reasonable for us to be scrutinize the reports and check
them..
EdC: Any prospective submitters of reports?
<francois> jo: we should start with looking up at members of this
group and then friends of members of the group.
Jo: Moving on - We need implementation reports from deployments. We
need members of the group who deploy CT proxies to provide reports.
Dan: I can try to get one [from VF].
Sean: I can find out if any of our customers can.
Jo: ... other candidates: Google...
Action on me to investigate CT implementation report.
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
action on Dan to investigate CT implementation report
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
as skjanldfsa l;af sl;afds jkldsfg ajkl dfas jl fa jl
<EdC> What about the absolutely latest recruit into the group ?
<EdC> I do not remember his name...
<jo> ACTION: dan to stop messing around, by tomorrow [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1051 - Stop messing around, by tomorrow
[on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: dan to investigate CT implementation report
[recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1052 - Investigate CT implementation
report [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: Sean to investigate CT implementation report
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1053 - Investigate CT implementation
report [on Sean Patterson - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: jo to see with Adam about CT implementation
report [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1054 - See with Adam about CT
implementation report [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29].
Ed: Can we [ask] Orange?
Francois: We can ask them.
<jo> close action-1051
<trackbot> ACTION-1051 Stop messing around, by tomorrow closed
<francois> ACTION: francois to see with Jérôme about CT
implementation report [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1055 - See with Jérôme about CT
implementation report [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29].
Francois: there are other CT vendors which were in the group - e.g.
OpenWave. We should knock on their door.
... I'll ping someone from OpenWave.
<francois> ACTION: francois to ping Openwave about CT implementation
report [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1056 - Ping Openwave about CT
implementation report [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: jo to ping dotMobi [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1057 - Ping dotMobi [on Jo Rabin - due
2010-06-29].
<jo> ACTION: jo to ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct
[recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1058 - Ask dotMobi for an implementation
report on ct [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29].
<jo> close action-1056
<trackbot> ACTION-1056 Ping Openwave about CT implementation report
closed
<jo> close action-1057
<francois> ACTION: Dan to ping Bytemobile about CT implementation
report [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> ACTION-1057 Ping dotMobi closed
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1059 - Ping Bytemobile about CT
implementation report [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION-1056?
<trackbot> ACTION-1056 -- François Daoust to ping Openwave about CT
implementation report -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056
<francois> ACTION-1057?
<trackbot> ACTION-1057 -- Jo Rabin to ping dotMobi -- due 2010-06-29
-- CLOSED
<trackbot>
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1057
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1057
<francois> ACTION-1058?
<trackbot> ACTION-1058 -- Jo Rabin to ask dotMobi for an
implementation report on ct -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1058
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1058
action-1056?
<trackbot> ACTION-1056 -- François Daoust to ping Openwave about CT
implementation report -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[24]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056
Charter Extension
Jo: In order to get BP2 into Rec we need a 3-month extension at a
minimum.
<EdC> What about just putting till 2010-12-31 and be done with
successive extensions?
Francois: I think 3 months is optimistic. 3 or 4 months is OK
though.
... Perhaps we should just make it 4 months?
<francois> +1 to 4 month extension
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests extension of its charter
by 4 months to allow the CT Guidelines and the Application Best
Practices to reach Rec.
+1
<jo> +1
<EdC> +1
<miguel> +1
<jeffs> +1
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests extension of its charter by 4 months
to allow the CT Guidelines and the Application Best Practices to
reach Rec.
Francois: I will do it.
<francois> ACTION: francois to request a 4 month charter extension
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1060 - Request a 4 month charter extension
[on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29].
AOB?
<EdC> Jeff's remark above ?
Jo: Jeff?
Jeff: we have a major re-work of HTML and XHTML in process that's
being wildly implemented by quite a number of folks. My question
was: should the group request an extension of its life to examine
that? Should it be reconstituted later?
<francois> [a new charter would need to be drafted to change scope]
Jo: My initial reaction is "no".
<EdC> Maybe we should know a) the schedule regarding the HTML5.0
process b) whether that group is going to spawn some special groups
itself.
Jo: 2 things - it is potentially too early within the limits of our
charter to comment on best practices of HTML5... I think this group
is done - if there is there is room for a new mobile web focused
group then its focus needs to be different... new agenda, separate
business.
... the landscape is very different. time for this group to pack its
bags and say "we're done."
<EdC> So, to answer my own questions -- it is too early to deal with
HTML5.0 and the discussions on BP will probably take place in the
context of another group, possibly spawned by HTML5.0 group itself.
<francois> DKA: [summary: agree we need to close the WG. HTML5 still
too yound. HTML5 is already looking at the mobile platform.
<francois> ]
Francois: a practical point - changing the charter of a working
group involves just as much work as creating another working group.
<jeffs> but changing the charter does not have the group-formation
problems as extending an existing group
+1 to what EdC said above - it needs to be "of" the HTML working
group rather than "of" the mobile community.
EdC: I expressed my dismay at any procedure that is as complicated
as forming a new group.
Jo: Taking the opportunity to start a new group might be a better
things to do.
<jeffs> and it seems to me that the activity is trailing off because
the current charge is winding down... and I do not see this as a
"new topic"... this is still BP for Mobile
<jeffs> I'll raise the issue again later on
Jo: I strongly think we should not taken on any other work but I
strongly encourage you to look for other avenues...
... Thanks all!
<jeffs> bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: dan to investigate CT implementation report [recorded
in [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Dan to ping Bytemobile about CT implementation report
[recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: dan to stop messing around, by tomorrow [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to ping Openwave about CT implementation
report [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to request a 4 month charter extension
[recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to see with Jérôme about CT implementation
report [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Jeff to help find 2 implementations of 5 and 6 by 30
June. [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct
[recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to ping dotMobi [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to see with Adam about CT implementation report
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to investigate CT implementation report [recorded
in [36]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 14:43:55 UTC