- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:42:03 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text at the end of this email.
Mobile Web Application Best Practices
-----
We're looking for more implementation feedback to complete the current
implementation report:
Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
-----
- no outstanding issue left. I am to ping the previous reviewers.
- two editorial comments to be addressed
- Dan mentions 203 response status code and evokes works on OPES. To be
investigated.
- current plan is to resolve to advance the specification to Candidate
Recommendation next week, knowing that the spec is likely to stay at
that stage in the absence of a test suite.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
30 Mar 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Mar/0009.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
tomhume, francois, miguel, adam, EdC, DKA, Kai_Dietrich, jo,
jeffs
Regrets
SeanP, Yeliz
Chair
Jo
Scribe
Kai
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Mobile Web Application Best Practices
2. [6]Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
* [7]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Mobile Web Application Best Practices
adam: there have been some responses.
<francois> [8]Implementation report so far
[8] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report
adam: we need more implementation reports from people. Most have
been from Google.
... we need two for each BP
tomhume: we'll do one
DKA: already sent ours in
Jo: another one? How about it?
... any others?
... Francois, outreach to others?
francois: not sure who to ask.
... there are many web apps that could be used
adam: there was some called [?] who was going to do something
<EdC> What about operators like ATT and Vodafone? Could they simply
ask the contributors to on-deck applications to fill in the
questionnaire?
jo: what about EdC suggestion?
DKA: is a good idea. I'll follow up.
francois: what about betavine?
<jo> ACTION: Appelquist to see if on-deck apps and betavine could be
a source of implementation reports [recorded in
[9]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1043 - See if on-deck apps and betavine
could be a source of implementation reports [on Daniel Appelquist -
due 2010-04-06].
Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies
francois: we are done with last call
... there have been no non-editorial comments
<francois> [10]Comments on Last Call
[10]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20100211/
francois: Last reviewers have not replied to our own reply but then
we would be done with LC period
... we have no one working on the test suite now
... so we will probably not have a test suite for this spec before
the end of the charter
... the best option would be to publish as CR and leave it at that
for the moment.
Jo: then we should do that
... SeanP was going to work on the test suite
DKA: we could recharter just to do the test suite
jo: we should get CR as soon as possible
... let's see what Sean says
DKA: i think our best chance is Nokia
jo: let's see what Sean says
EdC: there is a small probability that publishing a formal CR might
push other organizations to contribute (even partially) to a test
suite.
... it might entice them
jo: it seems like the next step anyways
... Francois, please contact previous commenters
<francois> ACTION: francois to ping previous reviewers on third last
call of CT [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1044 - Ping previous reviewers on third
last call of CT [on François Daoust - due 2010-04-06].
<EdC> Yes, let us move forward.
jo: next call we could ask for transition
[all agree verbally]
<jo> ACTION: JO to enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1045 - Enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [on Jo
Rabin - due 2010-04-06].
Jo: anything else on CT?
... AOB?
DKA: should mention informal feedback of the TAG on CT
... we got into a confusion around sniffing....there has been a lot
of talk about this in TAG
... because it has also been coming up in IETF
... CT was discussed it became clear that CT and sniffing are
related
(scribe can't hear)
scribe: discussion came up why 203 code wasn't used.
... we didn't take it further
... I believe we didn't have discussion on this
... I was asked why we didn't ref work out of IETF
... Larry M. pointed out that this work has been going on in IETF
since our work began
... work related to CT
<francois> [13]RFC3238
[13] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3238
scribe: what was our view on OPES?
... was it tangential?
Jo: no, but it wasn't actionable.
<EdC> This is the intent of RFC3238: "This memo provides information
for the Internet community. It does
<EdC> not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this
<EdC> memo is unlimited."
DKA: we need to get clarification from TAG or do research about
latest results on OPES.
jo: why don't you talk to Larry to get that info?
<jo> ACTION: Dan to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on IETF
work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
(typing is very loud)
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1046 - Ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and
Verse on IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [on Daniel
Appelquist - due 2010-04-06].
Jo: please proceed with previous plan and request transition to CR
... on 203.... it is not referred to under transform section. Can
somebody offer justification for the point of view?
... we might get some question about this not being in the RFC
... anybody want to investigate the 203 status?
<DKA> +1 to considering it discussed
Jo: anybody?
... it's been discussed
DKA: for a resolution somebody needs to take an action to do proper
research on how 203 has been used
francois: i can take an action to have an informal discussion with
Yves who might have something to say on this, given his involvement
in the HTTP Bis work
<jo> ACTION: francois to discuss status code 203 [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1047 - Discuss status code 203 [on
François Daoust - due 2010-04-06].
DKA: that would be good
jo: if we could bring these actions in by next week, then would
could ask for transition to CR
... any more?
... closing the call
<tomhume> bye
DKA: regrets for next two weeks
<DKA> I will work towards get the result of my action sent in on
email.
<DKA> ciao
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Appelquist to see if on-deck apps and betavine could
be a source of implementation reports [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Dan to ask Larry Masinter for Chapter and Verse on
IETF work that may be more recent than RFC 3238 [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to discuss status code 203 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to ping previous reviewers on third last call
of CT [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JO to enact LC-2377 and LC-2377 [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 14:42:34 UTC