See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 19 March 2007
attendees: Jo, Abel
<abel> hi jo.. I and Miguel are waiting for nacho
attendees+ miguel, Sean
<srowen> hello all
<scribe> scribe: Jo
<scribe> scribenick: Jo
<srowen> anyone joining the conference bridge?
sean: who can come?
jo: Me, you, Dom, probably,
Shadi.
... roland said he couldn't make it
abel: noone can attend from Spain
jo: if we changed date?
abel: no
jo: would like to make it
possible for people from spain to attend
... would it work better in Spain?
abel: we'd have to talk with
Nacho about the possibility
... he's not here right now but should be here soon
sean: should we change date then?
jo: if Dom and Shadi can be there then I think it would be worthwhile
sean: I'm less worried than I was
about sticking to the original deadlines, as there is stuff out
there for the finalized draft of mOK
... but lets go ahead
jo: I'll try finalise by this time tomorrow
sean: let's try to involve people from spain by phone
Sean: looks good to me, you guys seems to know what you want
<abel> yes, agreed with that
jo: think we need comments back from ERT group before finalising, and think it would be easier to finalise F2F
sean: Think we should probably take stock of requirements before pressing ahead on this - where are we with requirements
jo: agree that writing code helps one to sharpen ones perceptions
sean: agree - will continue to protype
jo: shadi mentioned that he was interested in extensibility to be a checker for WAI but I am concerned that it is a bit too broad for us
sean: yes, it would be good to meet their requirements but yes we need to be sure that it's not too broad
Sean: let's look at that thread
and see which lingering points of discussion remain
... bit worried about the tidying up issue
... is this lenient mode
jo: yes though worry about the
term 'lenient' as the result is the same whether or not you are
in it
... anyway it's in tune with what the mobileOK doc says
sean: should we record issues
jo: yes but is it OK to use BP tracker for that as we are not chartered
[nacho joined]
sean: should we go ahead with Dublin?
nacho: we can host it here on a
different date
... not on 2nd April
sean: so we will continue with tentative plans to meet in Dublin and conference you in
jo: need to confirm with Dublin
colleages and we should check that Dom and Shadi can sill make
it
... I'll do that by this time tomorrow
Sean: back to tidying up the
results
... just need to make it clear what is going on
jo: worrried about how the
tidying is actually done
... think we should investigate TAG soup
sean: agree that this could just be part of the test results
jo: think that we don't need to
fuss unduly about it if the doc fails validation
... then it fails, and maybe we just need to note on the other
results that this is based on TIDY and is not to be relied
upon
sean: that seems OK to me
<abel> +1
<abel> ... to set actions
<scribe> ACTION: Jo to confirm dublin F2F [for checker] by tomorrow [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-453 - Confirm dublin F2F [for checker] by tomorrow [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-03-26].
<scribe> ACTION: Sean to investigate TAG Soup [for checker] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-454 - Investigate TAG Soup [for checker] [on Sean Owen - due 2007-03-26].
<srowen> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2007Mar/0009.html
sean: yes take a URI would be good and yes it would be useful to test a doc locally
jo: think it implies a mode of
saying don't test links, don't test http headers
... acouple of cases
... in one you need to specify a base to check linked docs
sean: I see it as being having
the ability to supply headers and a base if you want
... makes sense as an approach
... on 4.3 docuemntation
... yes there is both Java doc and overall architecture doc
jo: I think that working on architecture doc would not be premature at this statge
<scribe> ACTION: Sean to start work on architectural documentation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-455 - Start work on architectural documentation [on Sean Owen - due 2007-03-26].
sean: should be helpful for
people to do implementations in other languages
... on 4.4 but we do need to replace dom's initial
version
... consensus seems to be that yes that is nice but should be
considered afterwards
jo: think we should not burn effort to make a proper interface beyond what is needed for testing
sean: 4.5.5 yes agree that the http headers should be recorded
jo: am worried that they don't really have consistent requirements for what we are trying to do and are maybe burning energy when it could be simpler if we have to add too much to it
sean: not that bothered about the RDF aspect
jo: well, the fact that there are
two ways of specifying headers and values ...
... makes it a bit inconvenient to use
... still not sure why they think this is useful and what is
the use case?
<srowen> (apologize for dominating the discussion)
sean: think I agree - if we find more issues then think we should revisit, it wouldn't be hard to reuse some of the stuff they have done but make it more convenient to use
nacho: we should try to re-use
existing technologies and extend it
... think it would be more work to do it otherwise
sean: let's use it as is and add
something that adds both the normalised and original form
... perhaps we should talk to Shadi about it
jo: I think that we should certainly output in HTTP-in-RDFbut whether we should therefor use exactly the same representation is open to question
sean: if I found another reason
that makes it incovenient then I'd be in favour of dumping
it
... but think we should persist for a while
jo: think that we should certainly makes sure we pay attention to their hard work - but don't know that this is the whole answer
nacho: yes we should give it a shot, but if its too hard then reconsider
jo: I am coming round to the view
that we should support it but not use it for the primary
representation
... because it may make it a lot harder for us to use it for
our own purposes
sean: lets continue this on list
nacho: can you do the
architecture as a skeleton so we can contribute parts
... how about a table of contents to start?
sean: sure I'll due it that way and open it up, would appreciate the help
sean: next monday Im'm travelling
and the monday after is april 2nd
... so next meeting will be then
... ok that's it!
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2007Mar/0043.html
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/cases/headers/ Found Scribe: Jo Inferring ScribeNick: jo Found ScribeNick: Jo Default Present: +0208995aaaa, jo, Sean_Owen, abel, miguel Present: Sean Abel Miguel Jo Nacho Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2007Mar/0043.html Found Date: 19 Mar 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-bpwg-minutes.html People with action items: jo sean[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]