07:12:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #mobileok
07:12:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-irc
07:12:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #mobileok
07:12:25 <dom> RRSAgent, make log public
07:12:38 <dom> Meeting: mobileOK checker Task Force F2F, day 1
08:29:13 <roland> roland has joined #mobileok
08:36:58 <jo> jo has joined #mobileok
08:37:11 <srowen> srowen has joined #mobileok
08:37:33 <jo> jo has changed the topic to: BPWG Roundabout Engineering Task FOrce
08:37:48 <jo> jo has changed the topic to: BPWG Roundabout Engineering Task Force
08:38:32 <jo> Chair: Sean
08:38:54 <jo> Meeting: BPWG Checker Task Force, Sophia Antipolis, Day 1
08:39:03 <jo> scribe: Jo
08:39:07 <jo> scribenick: jo
08:39:18 <jo> rrsagent, make logs public
08:39:25 <jo> rrsagent, draft minutes
08:39:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html jo
08:44:37 <srowe1> srowe1 has joined #mobileok
08:44:46 <srowe1> Testing
08:45:53 <jo> jo has joined #mobileok
08:46:22 <jo> Present: Sean, Dom, Nacho, Roland, Ruadhan, Abel, Miguel, Jo
08:46:31 <jo> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:46:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html jo
08:47:15 <jo> Topic: Agneda
08:47:23 <jo> s/Agneda/Agenda
08:47:53 <jo> Sean: Today mostly about where we are and raising issues and problems, things we need to get done
08:48:12 <jo> ... tomorrow about solving and prioritizing issues
08:48:26 <jo> ... Thursday about doing some collaborative work
08:48:35 <jo> rrsagent, please draft minutes
08:48:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html jo
08:49:45 <srowe1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2007Aug/0084.html
08:50:14 <abel> abel has joined #mobileok
08:50:17 <jo> Sean: agenda edited due to late start (roundabout factor)
08:50:20 <miguel> miguel has joined #mobileok
08:50:25 <jo> Topic: Review of Laura's work
08:50:26 <miguel> miguel has left #mobileok
08:50:52 <jo> Sean: Think Laura did the following tests:
08:51:05 <srowe1>    3.1 AUTO_REFRESH (partial) and REDIRECTION
08:51:05 <srowe1>    3.2 CACHING
08:51:05 <srowe1>    3.3 CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE
08:51:05 <srowe1>    3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and VALID_MARKUP
08:51:05 <srowe1>    3.5 DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE
08:51:06 <srowe1>    3.6 EXTERNAL_RESOURCES
08:51:08 <srowe1>    3.7 GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING
08:51:10 <srowe1>    3.8 IMAGE_MAPS
08:51:10 <miguel> miguel has joined #mobileok
08:51:12 <srowe1>    3.9 IMAGES_RESIZING and IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE
08:51:14 <srowe1>    3.11 MEASURES
08:51:16 <srowe1>    3.20 STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT (partial)
08:51:50 <jo> sean: need to review in detail but think they are substantially working, good job, probably ready for Beta
08:52:00 <jo> ... some of the issues that came up:
08:52:24 <jo> ... overall test application - command line runner
08:52:35 <jo> ... let's try it against google
08:52:48 <jo> ... really slow start up 10-15 secs
08:54:14 <ruadhan> ruadhan has joined #mobileok
08:55:28 <jo> ... shouldn't be this slow
08:55:34 <jo> ... [raisis issue]
08:55:43 <jo> s/raisis/raises/
08:56:08 <jo> Ruadhan: installed resolver for DTDs so shouldn't be that
08:56:32 <jo> Sean: looks at moki doc
08:57:28 <jo> jo: need to resolve how multiple references to the same thing is handled in moki doc
08:57:42 <jo> Sean: think that is done
08:59:28 <jo> jo: need to refer to where the reference is that causes an image to retrieved
08:59:52 <jo> ... e.g. an image that is retrieved by an imported style sheet that imports a style sheet
09:00:11 <jo> dom: parsing errors won't pick this up
09:01:05 <jo> jo: need to state what the rule is for equivalence of URIs
09:01:22 <jo> ... just needs to be stated and document
09:05:11 <jo> sean: I think this complicates the code considerably more than it seems
09:06:07 <jo> jo: I think it is important from the point of helping implementors find out e.g. where something has gone wrong and why a document has been retrieved 
09:06:30 <jo> dom: we should at least record the source document if not from the line number
09:06:36 <jo> ... think this would be sueful
09:06:42 <jo> s/sueful/useful/
09:07:47 <jo> Jo: think that we should amke an issue about recording the line no and source document that caused a retrieval
09:07:56 <jo> s/amke/make/
09:08:21 <dom> dom has joined #mobileok
09:08:25 <nacho> nacho has joined #mobileok
09:09:00 <jo> [sean raises ISSUE-210]
09:10:09 <jo> jo: should I make the HTTP thing a spearate namespace
09:10:20 <jo> dom: no lets keep it simple for now
09:10:37 <jo> s/spearate/separate/
09:12:41 <jo> jo: we should make the element names MarkupValidity and MobileValidity more clearly different
09:12:49 <jo> ... more meaningful
09:13:19 <jo> [sean raises ISSUE-211]
09:14:16 <jo> sean: be aware of the knock-on effect on style sheets
09:14:38 <jo> ... everything will need to be checked for references
09:14:57 <jo> Abel: extraneous characters are not being checked properly yet
09:22:10 <jo> Sean: do we have a problem with the character encoding?
09:23:29 <dom> TODO: complete test on extraneous characters
09:23:45 <dom> TODO: add "about me" node (info about implementation libraries, versions, etc)
09:23:57 <dom> TODO: missing namespaced in parsed/tidy document
09:24:43 <dom> TODO: show whether the parsed document has been tidied 
09:24:58 <dom> TODO: encoding output not showing properly
09:25:29 <jo> -> editors draft http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/070824
09:25:54 <nacho> nacho has joined #mobileok
09:25:59 <dom> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/070824 mobileOK Basic latest editors draft
09:27:06 <jo> Sean: hover is invalid CSS?
09:27:30 <jo> jo: it's not CSS 1 - anyway it shouldnot say 'invalid' it reults only in a warn
09:28:30 <jo> sean: yes we should probably make it consistent and not say it is a fail
09:29:17 <dom> TODO: modify moki not to say "fail" for warns on CSS (distinguish errors from warnings)
09:29:27 <dom> TODO: complete stylesheet_use to pick up the warnings
09:31:54 <dom> TODO: omit <column> when column undetermined
09:32:27 <jo> [discussion about the fact that we don't ever have a column no so should be omitted for clarity] 
09:33:26 <dom> Abel: we're not checking inline styles at this time (style='background-image:url()')
09:33:36 <dom> ... we can have a look at this
09:34:13 <dom> TODO: deal with inline stylesheets
09:34:33 <dom> s/stylesheets/styles defined in attributes/
09:38:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #mobileok
09:38:43 <jo> sean: we should check for style attribute when running the XSLT
09:39:50 <jo> abel: we can put stylesheet type as "inline" or something
09:40:36 <jo> jo: it would make more sense to have the CSS results all in one place
09:40:54 <jo> sean: but it is, having stuff in the moki document is merely a conveience
09:41:11 <jo> convenience
09:41:26 <jo> s/conveience/convenience
09:41:41 <jo> s/convenience//
09:43:49 <dom> TODO: delete stylesheetssupporttest.xsl
09:44:37 <dom> [the latter is done]
09:44:44 <jo> miguel: stylesheetsupport.xsl was for when we serialised it as XML
09:46:09 <jo> sean: issue about finding line and column
09:46:30 <jo> dom: we should just do our best efforts as there is only one line in attributes anyway
09:46:46 <dom> (and they can only be in the markup document, by definition)
09:47:22 <jo> sean: should we just make this an inline type in the moki without line number  
09:47:26 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:47:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html dom
09:47:33 <jo> [Agrred that thiswould be the approach]
09:47:48 <jo> s/Agrred/Agreed/
09:50:52 <nacho_> nacho_ has joined #mobileok
09:52:22 <jo> Sean: links ... we don't have the body in the moki document
09:52:56 <jo> jo: we cant look at meta if we don't have the body
09:53:17 <jo> Sean: we should at least look at this to see what it is doing
09:53:18 <nacho> nacho has joined #mobileok
09:54:11 <nacho> nacho has joined #mobileok
09:54:19 <jo> ... need to check whether the body is omitted on links a) because it is application/xhtml or b) because the charset was already specified so there is no need for the body
09:54:37 <jo> sean: so the question is when should the body be recorded
09:55:03 <jo> ... a) we should record bodies despite the bloat
09:55:18 <jo> ... b) we should not record unknown or binary
09:59:56 <nacho_> nacho_ has joined #mobileok
10:01:30 <nacho> nacho has joined #mobileok
10:03:26 <jo> .. c) not for link targets either
10:04:57 <jo> [jo raised an issue on LINK_TARGET_FORMAT, ISSUE-212 making clear that the document body does not need to be examined]
10:12:17 <jo> [raised ISSUE-213 on objects etc ]
10:12:46 <jo> RESOLUTION: Record the body only of external CSS
10:13:27 <nacho_> nacho_ has joined #mobileok
10:17:12 <jo>  TODO: Cahce Control test (and others) should only be carried out on the final redirect of any particular request
10:17:45 <jo>  TODO: Results need to be labelled with the document that they are moaning about if it is not the primary doc
10:18:00 <jo> s/Cahce/Cache/
10:24:23 <jo> Sean: meta refresh
10:24:47 <jo> jo: I think we should stop if we see refresh because the rest of the results are bougus
10:24:58 <jo> s/bougus/bogus/
10:25:38 <jo> sean: I think we should just leave it as it is
10:29:00 <nacho> nacho has joined #mobileok
10:29:17 <jo> [Sean raises ISSUE-214 on whether it is sensible to stop or not]
10:39:08 <dom> dom has joined #mobileok
10:39:35 <dom> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2003Jul/0174.html someone complaining about the markup validator not following meta-refresh (and life, universe , and everything)
10:40:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html dom
11:38:41 <dom> dom has joined #mobileok
11:40:36 <miguel> miguel has joined #mobileok
11:42:57 <j1> j1 has joined #mobileOK
11:46:28 <j1> [continuing after lunch]
11:46:39 <j1> Sean: let's carry on with looking at the moki document
11:48:19 <j1> ... should we use copy of text in the tests document or edited a bit
11:48:26 <miguel> miguel has joined #mobileok
11:50:29 <j1> ... OK that's about it from me, I am going to get a bit more involved from now
11:50:39 <dom> ScirbeNick: srowe1
11:50:49 <j1> Scribenick: Sean
11:51:04 <dom> ScirbeNick: srowe1
11:51:07 <j1> scribenick: srowe1
11:53:15 <srowe1> roland: finished all my tests but STYLE_SHEETS_USE-5 and OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT-6
11:54:01 <srowe1> focused on XSLT and not junit tests
11:54:10 <nacho> nacho has joined #mobileok
11:54:40 <srowe1> have been using moki and saxon+xslt, writing success and failure tests
11:55:16 <srowe1> have problems running the test implementation
11:55:30 <srowe1> srowe1: only need to run 'ant'
11:55:38 <srowe1> roland: yes, tests fail
11:55:57 <srowe1> need to wait until tests don't fail
11:56:29 <srowe1> srowe1: should be basically runinng, building now so report problems to list
11:57:35 <srowe1> roland: can also write junit tests
11:58:35 <srowe1> srowe1: should not need to write junit tests if not writing java code
11:58:53 <srowe1> roland: rename functions.xsl to common.xsl?
11:59:35 <srowe1> dom: seems Ok to leave it as is
12:00:15 <srowe1> roland: xpath and moki document may not explain the test. need to include references to mobileok basic document
12:00:33 <srowe1> leads us to discuss ids and names
12:00:53 <srowe1> latest draft has IDs in document
12:01:25 <srowe1> need to agree on naming convention
12:04:32 <srowe1> don't see, where is the test_ syntax used?
12:04:49 <srowe1> the IDs in the new basic tests draft
12:10:32 <srowe1> (much discussion about current conventions)
12:11:17 <srowe1> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: change 'test_x' anchors in mobileOK Basic doc to 'X'
12:12:27 <srowe1> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for tests related to multiple BPs, use the name of the first one (e.g. AUTO_REFRESH, not AUTO_REFRESH_REDIRECTION)
12:15:55 <srowe1> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: leave current fragment identifiers for any test conditions that don't directly map to best practices
12:17:58 <srowe1> RESOLUTION: change 'test_x' anchors in mobileOK Basic doc to 'X'
12:18:05 <srowe1> RESOLUTION: for tests related to multiple BPs, use the name of the first one (e.g. AUTO_REFRESH, not AUTO_REFRESH_REDIRECTION)
12:18:10 <srowe1> RESOLUTION: leave current fragment identifiers for any test conditions that don't directly map to best practices
12:18:40 <srowe1> roland: being consistent lets one automatically look for differences between mobileOK Basic document and test output
12:19:32 <srowe1> roland: some tests do not have xhtml namespaces
12:20:15 <dom> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2007Jul/0080
12:21:44 <srowe1> srowe1: solving html xmlns problem will solve this problem too
12:22:04 <srowe1> roland: laura finished some tests -- who owns her tests now?
12:22:06 <srowe1> srowe1: I will
12:23:00 <srowe1> let's look at the status in the google doc
12:23:12 <srowe1> dom: let's distinguish between coding done and test suites complete
12:24:18 <dom> > http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgh5r6zs_5cb7gz3 mobileOK test implementation on google docs
12:25:33 <srowe1> let's update the document
12:25:39 <srowe1> I can own the first 9 now, all should be completed
12:26:42 <srowe1> plus MEASURES STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT
12:26:52 <srowe1> roland: by 'finished' I mean 'coding done' -- will update
12:28:50 <srowe1> srowe1: roland, sounds like status is you have written implementations in xslt but haven't been able to write tests
12:29:11 <srowe1> roland: yes and have found some bugs / unnecessarily complicated expressions in XSL, and fixed those
12:30:32 <srowe1> topics for tomorrow - what will happen when mobileOK goes live? bugs, maintenance, etc.?
12:31:55 <srowe1> srowe1: think we need a bug tracker for people to report bugs. I will try to stay involved after release and hope everyone can. what else?
12:32:03 <srowe1> roland: yes, what are next steps?
12:33:15 <dom> I have added a mobileok checker product in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ ]
12:33:21 <dom> s/I/[I/
12:33:31 <srowe1> srowe1: how are we going to put this out with a public web interface, to get a lot of usage and see bugs?
12:34:04 <srowe1> not sure ready.mobi can just use this since it will be buggy
12:34:28 <srowe1> ruadhan: could put out a beta version for people to use 'at their own risk'
12:35:07 <srowe1> would have to run by james
12:35:47 <srowe1> j1: not clear how comprehensive the tests we have here are
12:36:14 <srowe1> not sure we have all positive and negative tests for tests
12:36:23 <srowe1> srowe1: yes full regression test suite is essential
12:37:45 <srowe1> how about putting this up as a beta at validator.w3.org/mobile?
12:38:03 <srowe1> dom: yes as soon as performance issues are solved. can wrap the java library in python
12:38:31 <srowe1> critical to a) implement all tests and b) fix performance first
12:38:41 <srowe1> the more we have regression tests the better I feel
12:42:22 <srowe1> srowe1: think we need to first finish this (plus performance issues) and write regression tests
12:42:34 <srowe1> then put it up at w3.org, let it prove itself, collect bugs
12:42:44 <srowe1> then have ruadhan look at ready.mobi beta based on it
12:42:54 <srowe1> look at differences with current implementation to find more bugs
12:43:00 <srowe1> but that's not on the radar yet
12:44:21 <srowe1> roland: when we launch a service there are many administrative concerns like errors, logs, performance. who will monitor this?
12:44:57 <srowe1> dom: won't be a problem, I will be administering initially
12:48:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html dom
13:15:23 <roland> roland has joined #mobileok
13:18:39 <dom> we have a reservation for tonight at:
13:18:39 <dom> Restaurant la Daurade
13:18:39 <dom> 44 bd Aguillon
13:18:39 <dom> 06600 Antibes
13:28:44 <srowe1> abel: LINK_TARGET_FORMAT has some issues
13:29:27 <srowe1> miguel: https connections can be handled by apache http client, but mobileOK basic tests say in 2.3.3,
13:29:39 <srowe1> we have to check certificate validity and so on
13:30:33 <srowe1> not sure if http client handles invalid certificate
13:30:52 <srowe1> need to implement socket connection to see if certificate is valid or not
13:31:08 <srowe1> but don't stop test
13:34:32 <srowe1> srowe1: is the issue just checking for certificate expiration?
13:34:48 <srowe1> miguel: note that client will accept self-signed certificates, good
13:36:20 <srowe1> srowe1: client will fail fast if HTTPS certificate is invalid
13:38:51 <srowe1> the TODO concerns handling expired certificates
13:39:30 <srowe1> miguel: need to define how to request forms with GET
13:40:11 <srowe1> for linked results, we need at least <meta> information to carry out consistence of content type test
13:42:00 <srowe1> srowe1: first point is about forms. you are noting that we are not handling form inputs with actual values when GETting the form action URI
13:42:12 <srowe1> dom: yes we would need to do that. But I think we should not handle forms at all
13:43:42 <srowe1> this is just for a warn, after all
13:52:55 <dom> TODO: deal properly with GET forms (i.e. include empty/default values for each form element)
13:53:15 <srowe1> dom: parsing the input elements and forming URI is not so bad
13:53:34 <srowe1> (digression on name "Visible Linked Resources")
13:53:49 <srowe1> miguel: I think we will get back errors of blank pages in response many times
13:54:02 <srowe1> dom: yes, results are likely to be useless
13:54:13 <srowe1> j1: all we are looking for is content type really, not results
13:54:41 <srowe1> j1: difference between HEAD and GET
13:54:54 <srowe1> dom: according to HTTP should return the same headers
13:55:13 <srowe1> j1: all we care about is content type
13:55:30 <srowe1> miguel: we will usually just get errors anyway
13:56:09 <srowe1> we aren't testing the "real" case anyway
13:56:29 <srowe1> can get different pages in response to a form
13:57:30 <srowe1> srowe1: a bit better to request the form properly so we're more likely to test a 'real' case. Can never test all cases.
13:57:49 <srowe1> dom: just seems like a bunch of effort for little
13:58:10 <srowe1> j1: will catch a small but useful number of cases, like using a form for a push-button when it could be a hyperlink
14:01:01 <srowe1> srowe1: miguel your other point was the same we discussed this morning -- whether we need to keep body of linked resources?
14:02:18 <srowe1> related to ISSUE-212
14:02:19 <srowe1> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/212
14:03:11 <srowe1> srowe1: not an issue if we decide to not examine body of linked resources
14:03:39 <srowe1> miguel: MINIMIZE
14:04:12 <srowe1> still need to exclude pre, style, script, etc.
14:08:23 <srowe1> also need to not use Character.isWhitespace()
14:08:32 <srowe1> roland: why do we exclude style and script?
14:09:10 <srowe1> j1: we could re-serialize CSS and compare with original to detect extra whitespace
14:09:18 <srowe1> srowe1: is whitespace ever significant?
14:09:24 <srowe1> in CSS?
14:10:14 <srowe1> dom: a string literal with multiple spaces, for example, shouldn't be counted against the page in <script> -- not extraneous
14:10:22 <srowe1> roland: whitespace in URIs in CSS?
14:10:27 <srowe1> dom: should have to be escaped
14:11:54 <srowe1> dom: content element is an example where string literals may be found in CSS
14:11:57 <srowe1> dom: fine to leave it as is
14:16:14 <srowe1> j1: CSS quoting mechanism could be an issue
14:16:29 <srowe1> dom: I think this will introduce more bugs -- leave it to implementations to note CSS whitespace
14:16:42 <srowe1> srowe1: I don't think quoting quotes/spaces is a problem here
14:17:52 <srowe1> I think it's just one more line in the test
14:19:25 <srowe1> on the other hand, most of the waste of whitespace is not in CSS
14:19:35 <srowe1> j1: ... it's in change history block comments...
14:19:51 <srowe1> srowe1: ... indenting markup with spaces...
14:20:20 <srowe1> dom: don't we need to then parse whitespace in external stylesheets
14:21:55 <srowe1> roland: if PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT fails, we could note this may be due to large script or style elements, to solve this, and not change the tests
14:23:58 <dom> css parsing for comments "COMMENT 	\/\*[^*]*\*+([^/][^*]*\*+)*\/"
14:25:11 <srowe1> srowe1: kind of convinced that it's not worth it
14:25:59 <srowe1> j1: ironic that simple things like "parsing CSS comments" sound "too hard" to purported experts
14:27:05 <dom> css parsing for comments in css 2.1 "COMMENT 	\/\*[^*]*\*+([^/*][^*]*\*+)*\/"
14:27:20 <srowe1> j1: need to consider script and style together
14:27:44 <srowe1> I suppose script doesn't necessarily contain javascript or any particular language
14:27:54 <srowe1> althought it's almost surely javascript
14:28:00 <srowe1> srowe1: think script is too hard to deal with
14:28:56 <srowe1> j1: ... proposes thought experiment about page with script that overwrites itself with a simple message on load
14:29:51 <srowe1> should write something in mobileOK about pathological cases to fool the tester
14:30:18 <srowe1> dom: mobileOK only worth something to people trying to do the right thing anyway, so many pathological use cases
14:30:28 <srowe1> that it's not useful describe any one of them
14:35:54 <srowe1> dom: let's not bother about <style> now. can leave this to implementations.
14:42:43 <srowe1> (much more debate about this)
14:42:56 <srowe1> srowe1: vote for modifying mobileOK basic and implementing this
14:43:02 <srowe1> (straw poll supported this)
14:44:43 <srowe1> dom: what are the rules? fail on whitespace count on a per-document basis?
14:44:47 <srowe1> srowe1: yes
14:46:59 <srowe1> we will raise an issue on this
14:47:29 <dom> TODO: implementing CSS parsing for extraenous white space
14:49:30 <srowe1> nacho: let's discuss user manual content
15:07:45 <dom> " \t\r\n\f"
15:08:54 <dom> \f, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_break
15:12:18 <srowe1> nacho: will start working on documentation as an OpenOffice doc, upload to repository
15:12:26 <srowe1> is it preferable in XML?
15:13:01 <srowe1> srowe1: markup might be more desirable since it can be put online but really not a big deal
15:13:25 <srowe1> just use OpenOffice for now
15:13:41 <srowe1> j1: whatever's easiest -- it would be nice to turn this into markup automatically
15:13:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html dom
15:14:41 <srowe1> nacho: how to be represented in the cover of the document? logos?
15:14:59 <srowe1> srowe1: just names and organization names
15:16:26 <srowe1> j1: use format used on mobileOK Basic test doc, where we list editors / primary contributors, and list other acknowledgements elsewhere
15:16:39 <srowe1> srowe1: everyone in this room is a primary contributor, plus Laura
15:16:51 <srowe1> j1: wonder if James et al. should be acknowledged
15:17:04 <srowe1> nacho: list license in the doc?
15:17:23 <srowe1> dom: I have open actions about copyright
15:17:57 <srowe1> j1: copyright of document is separate from copyright of code
15:18:19 <srowe1> also issue of whether derivate works can be called 'mobileOK checker
15:18:53 <srowe1> dom: then again we're only a client of the mobileOK group's output, which kind of owns tha tname
15:18:59 <srowe1> j1: need to note this though
15:19:16 <srowe1> dom: need to clear it with working group to be called the reference implementation
15:20:14 <srowe1> srowe1: not necessarily true that any derivative work *isn't* checking mobileOK -- depends on whether tests implement the spec
15:20:19 <srowe1> j1: attention needs to be called to this
15:21:27 <srowe1> nacho: first section is an introduction
15:21:32 <srowe1> explain the audience
15:21:52 <srowe1> people using the library as well as developers using, say, a web interface
15:22:01 <srowe1> explain relation to mobileOK test document
15:22:18 <srowe1> plus hyperlinks to document
15:22:48 <srowe1> explain web interface and how to use it in next section
15:24:05 <srowe1> srowe1: there is no UI with the library, though validator.w3.org/mobile will probably use it
15:24:10 <srowe1> dom: question is, what is the audience?
15:24:35 <srowe1> I think we should focus on the library and not a UI
15:25:09 <srowe1> srowe1: yes, would not worry about the UI yet
15:25:25 <srowe1> j1: we should produce a downloadable .jar file which can be urn on the command line
15:26:27 <srowe1> srowe1: yes easy to produce a standalone runnable .jar file, 'statically linked'
15:26:32 <srowe1> nacho: OK so focus on library
15:27:29 <srowe1> want to make sure people that only find the document can quickly play with the test suite
15:27:45 <srowe1> library section would first focus on how to load and start it
15:27:58 <srowe1> srowe1: that should be very easy
15:29:04 <srowe1> j1: question about whether version of libraries changing affects mobileOK compliance
15:29:28 <srowe1> srowe1: we can't know -- the reference implementation with its given versions is 'official' and that's about all we can say
15:29:37 <srowe1> nacho: next need to explain public methods, API, configuration
15:29:45 <srowe1> need to explain moki format
15:31:06 <srowe1> nacho: finally, section with code snippets and examples
15:31:49 <srowe1> simple examples, or more complex?
15:33:01 <srowe1> srowe1: one comprehensive example showing complete usage of the Java API sounds good to me
15:33:32 <srowe1> j1: we should link to public-mobileok-checker list and home page
15:34:19 <srowe1> nacho: next section is architectural overview
15:35:17 <srowe1> also explain here how the design tries to stay independent of libraries and so on
15:35:44 <srowe1> next section includes UML use case diagrams to show how flows work
15:36:27 <srowe1> srowe1: how useful are UML sequence diagrams? maybe a high-level diagram at best
15:36:35 <srowe1> j1: maybe a class interaction diagram
15:37:03 <srowe1> nacho: also want to include section on design, design patterns
15:37:33 <srowe1> maybe a package diagram?
15:37:38 <srowe1> srowe1: it's all in one package
15:38:59 <srowe1> j1: maybe separate out preprocessor classes?
15:39:36 <srowe1> nacho: next section explains tests, which tests the library passes
15:39:53 <srowe1> dom: maybe it should be a section about how to add new test test cases
15:41:21 <srowe1> srowen1: I think the writing tests-for-tests section is by far the most important for developers working on the library itself
15:41:29 <srowe1> nacho: lastly, section on performance
15:42:02 <srowe1> dom: not obvious what to put in there now
15:42:17 <srowe1> srowe1: yeah I would wait until there is something substantive we need to say about performance
15:43:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-mobileok-minutes.html dom
15:45:26 <dom> 44 bd Aguillon
15:45:26 <dom> 06600 Antibes
15:46:14 <j1> j1 has left #mobileok
15:46:43 <abel> abel has left #mobileok
15:48:17 <miguel> miguel has left #mobileok
16:23:37 <nacho> nacho has left #mobileok