- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 16:25:22 +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/2010/05/18-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
Resolved ref. Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies:
- Agree to first 3 points of sets of proposals in fd's email: we'll link
to a test case repository, test suite is more to be viewed as a
challenge test cases repository, and the group commits to initiate the
work on the test suite in the remaining life time of the group.
- No change to the exit criteria because the group believes that raising
awareness on the guidelines is more important than the risk of having
non-interoperable implementations of the spec, and fears that the
guidelines will be stuck at the Candidate Recommendation phase if the
exit criteria were bound to the existence of a test suite.
Resolved ref. erratum for mobileOK spec:
- Erratum to mobileOK related to HTTP_RESPONSE-11 clause: [[ If the HTTP
status represents failure (4xx), other than *in any of the following
cases: i)* the HTTP status is 404, *ii) the HTTP status represents* a
request for authentication (e.g. 401) or *iii) the HTTP status is* 406
*for object elements (but not any other elements)* when carrying out the
3.15.1 Object Element Processing Rule, FAIL ]]
Thanks,
Francois
-----
18 May 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0003.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
DKA, adam, francois, miguel, spatters
Regrets
Jo, kai, tom, yeliz
Chair
DKA
Scribe
adam
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]MWABP
2. [6]Transition Request for CT
3. [7]Erratum for MobileOK
4. [8]AOB
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<DKA> Agenda:
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0003.htm
l
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0003.html
MWABP
<francois> [11]Latest implementation report
[11] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/mwabp-implementation-report
adam: We have two more we could send from Google, but these are
unlikely to close up any holes.
dka: Nothing to report from other contacts.
... Will keep hunting.
adam: What happens if we don't get 2 implementations for some of the
BPs.
francois: We'd have to go back to last-call in that case because we
didn't identify those BPs as at risk. But it can be a short LC.
dka: We should be able to find implementations for the BPs if we
keep working at it.
... Could you summarise the BPs that don't have enough
implementations yet in email to member group so we can evangelise
getting more reports around those particular items.
Transition Request for CT
francois: We need approval from director of W3C to move forward CT.
But there is some pushback on the exit criteria. The exit criteria
should be bound to a concrete test suite.
<DKA>
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Apr/0009.htm
l
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Apr/0009.html
francois: Note the forth resolution is to bind the exit criteria to
the creation of a test suite. We'll have a hard time convincing the
director that we can move to CR without this.
sean: Haven't we already discussed the need of a test suite?
francois: We've discussed it, but in the exit criteria as they
currently exist we have separated the creation of the test suite
from the implementation reports.
... But in our exit criteria currently we do not check the claim of
conformance.
dka: Didn't Jo have a plan to get a test suite written?
francois: Summarising Jo's position... Working on test suite is not
a requirement, we acknowledge that it's good practice but it's not
required by the process document. We should agree with the first
three proposed changes [in Francois' email] but if we commit to
developing test-suite the document will get stuck in CR.
dka: I wonder if there's a middle way... Between no test-suite and
the absolute requirement of a test-suite.
francois: The first three points specify what the test-suite is and
is not. One is to say that the test suite is a repository of
challenge tests, it doesn't have to cover everything in the document
(because that's not possible) but it has to cover main things in the
form of challenge tests only. This is a good middle-ground between
having a complete test suite and not developing anything. But it
would still require a fair amount of work.
<DKA> +1
dka: Sean, could you commit to supplying some of these challenge
tests.
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Agree to first 3 points of sets of
proposals in fd's email: we'll link to a test case repository, test
suite is more to be viewed as a challenge test cases repository, and
the group commits to initiate the work on the test suite in the
remaining life time of the group.
sean: Things are kind of up in the air, so it might be tricky. Doing
one or two tests would be a smaller committment, so might be
possible. But can't committ right now.
<DKA> +1 to Proposed Resolution
+1
<miguel> +1
RESOLUTION: Agree to first 3 points of sets of proposals in fd's
email: we'll link to a test case repository, test suite is more to
be viewed as a challenge test cases repository, and the group
commits to initiate the work on the test suite in the remaining life
time of the group.
<spatters> +1
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No change to the exit criteria
because the group believes that raising awareness on the guidelines
is more important than the risk of having non-interoperable
implementations of the spec, and fears that the guidelines will be
stuck at the Candidate Recommendation phase if the exit criteria
were bound to the existence of a test suite.
<DKA> ACTION: Sean to come back to the group by next call with a
yes/no on writing some challenge tests for CT. [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1049 - Come back to the group by next call
with a yes/no on writing some challenge tests for CT. [on Sean
Patterson - due 2010-05-25].
+1
<DKA> +1
<spatters> +1
<miguel> +1
RESOLUTION: No change to the exit criteria because the group
believes that raising awareness on the guidelines is more important
than the risk of having non-interoperable implementations of the
spec, and fears that the guidelines will be stuck at the Candidate
Recommendation phase if the exit criteria were bound to the
existence of a test suite.
Erratum for MobileOK
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0000.htm
l
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0000.html
<DKA>
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0000.htm
l
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010May/0000.html
<francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Erratum to mobileOK related to
HTTP_RESPONSE-11 clause: [[ [ If the HTTP status represents failure
(4xx), other than *in any of the following cases: i)* the HTTP
status is 404, *ii) the HTTP status represents* a request for
authentication (e.g. 401) or *iii) the HTTP status is* 406 *for
object elements (but not any other elements)* when carrying out the
3.15.1 Object Element Processing Rule, FAIL ]]
<francois> +1
<DKA> +1
<miguel> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: Erratum to mobileOK related to HTTP_RESPONSE-11 clause:
[[ [ If the HTTP status represents failure (4xx), other than *in any
of the following cases: i)* the HTTP status is 404, *ii) the HTTP
status represents* a request for authentication (e.g. 401) or *iii)
the HTTP status is* 406 *for object elements (but not any other
elements)* when carrying out the 3.15.1 Object Element Processing
Rule, FAIL ]]
AOB
<miguel> bye
<DKA> thanks all!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to come back to the group by next call with a
yes/no on writing some challenge tests for CT. [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 14:25:52 UTC