13:48:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
13:48:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-irc
13:48:43 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs member
13:48:45 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be BPWG
13:48:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
13:48:47 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:48:49 <trackbot-ng> Date: 18 October 2007
13:49:38 <dom> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Oct/0034.html
13:49:40 <dom> Chair: Jo
13:50:22 <dom> Regrets: Mike, Ignacio, Abel, Robert Finean
13:55:09 <Zakim> jo, you asked to be pinged at this time
13:55:30 <jo> Regrets+ Bryan
13:58:39 <dom> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:00:29 <DKA> DKA has joined #bpwg
14:00:32 <dom> Regrets+ Charles
14:00:44 <dom> Regrets+ Magnus
14:00:46 <edm> edm has joined #bpwg
14:00:57 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started
14:01:04 <Zakim> +Ed_Mitukiewicz
14:01:31 <jo> zakim, code?
14:01:31 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:01:56 <Zakim> +Dom
14:02:22 <Zakim> +jo
14:02:36 <SeanPatterson> SeanPatterson has joined #bpwg
14:03:26 <jo> zakim, who is here?
14:03:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ed_Mitukiewicz, Dom (muted), jo
14:03:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see SeanPatterson, edm, DKA, RRSAgent, matt, Zakim, jo, dom, trackbot-ng
14:04:07 <Zakim> +SeanPatterson
14:04:10 <adam> adam has joined #bpwg
14:04:29 <Zakim> +??P16
14:04:52 <jo> zakim, ??P16 is Adam
14:04:52 <Zakim> +Adam; got it
14:05:23 <Zakim> +Kai_Dietrich
14:05:49 <Zakim> +DKA
14:07:16 <Zakim> + +1.650.224.aaaa
14:07:47 <jo> zakim, aaaa is SRO
14:07:47 <Zakim> +SRO; got it
14:08:13 <Zakim> -Dom
14:08:19 <achuter> achuter has joined #bpwg
14:08:45 <srowen> srowen has joined #bpwg
14:08:48 <Zakim> +Dom
14:09:02 <jo> zakim, SRO is srowen
14:09:02 <Zakim> +srowen; got it
14:09:29 <dom> Regrets+ Bruno
14:09:41 <srowen> jo: ACTION-559
14:09:43 <dom> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/559
14:09:56 <edm> See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Oct/0044.html
14:10:04 <jo> Topic: ACTION-559
14:10:48 <srowen> edm: I think we agreed that everything would be conducted in public unless otherwise requested
14:11:08 <srowen> I think we addressed remaining concerns
14:11:11 <srowen> new home page will be public
14:11:15 <Zakim> + +1.781.267.aabb
14:12:05 <srowen> only private items would be email, and this would not be retroactively applied to old messages and so on
14:12:46 <jo> zakim, aabb is shah
14:12:46 <Zakim> +shah; got it
14:12:47 <dom> q+ to comment on visibility of standing
14:12:53 <jo> ack dom
14:12:54 <Zakim> dom, you wanted to comment on visibility of standing
14:13:51 <srowen> dom: we can make public only name and affiliation of members
14:14:14 <srowen> keep current version, or create separate public version?
14:14:24 <srowen> (+1 to making a public version if it's easy)
14:14:24 <dom> +1
14:14:28 <srowen> jo: I support this
14:14:30 <edm> +1
14:14:31 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
14:14:38 <dom> -> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=37584&public=1 Public version of the participation list
14:14:49 <srowen> jo: Let's assume we will have a public version
14:15:26 <srowen> jo: old private material will remain private
14:16:08 <Kai> I for one would rather not have the usage data I provided for the group in the public domain
14:16:50 <srowen> need plan to enact this
14:17:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:17:18 <dom> [I just made our Group page public]
14:17:47 <srowen> dom: happy to make any pages public
14:18:39 <srowen> jo: what about making a new page?
14:19:01 <srowen> probably don't want to bring into public view a page linking to old drafts, etc.
14:19:02 <edm> q+ to clarify some details for Dom
14:20:18 <srowen> dom: wouldn't this break links?
14:20:27 <srowen> jo: but we would leave existing documents in place
14:21:32 <srowen> edm: see message for specifics. I examined the links and it looks fine
14:21:45 <srowen> in general we agreed old docs remain private
14:22:44 <srowen> jo: want to avoid broken links off home page, to old docs
14:22:57 <srowen> will take an action to discuss with appropriate person about this
14:23:06 <jo> ACTION: Jo to progress public/private plan with Dom etc.
14:23:06 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-580 - Progress public/private plan with Dom etc. [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-10-25].
14:23:33 <jo> Topic: mobileOK Tests
14:24:22 <srowen> jo: have written proposed responses to all LC3 comments, except those that came in yesterday?
14:24:28 <srowen> srowen: right, though they are mostly editorial
14:24:54 <srowen> jo: getting ready to request transition to CR
14:25:04 <srowen> but dom has suggested we should define exit criteria
14:25:15 <dom> ack me
14:25:57 <srowen> dom: to transition to CR, of course need to finalize document and answer all comments
14:26:05 <srowen> need to agree on exit criteria too
14:27:37 <srowen> for the BP document, we required that each BP be implemented twice on a web site
14:28:31 <srowen> suggest we need examples of mobileOK Basic compliant web sites, maybe 5-10
14:28:51 <srowen> need to include the requirement of having checker implementations
14:28:58 <srowen> we have the library that was just released for example
14:29:43 <srowen> maybe need URLs to test mobileOK Basic
14:30:08 <jo> ack ed
14:30:08 <Zakim> edm, you wanted to clarify some details for Dom
14:30:18 <srowen> jo: need compliant web sites, implementation, and test suites for a checker
14:30:41 <Kai> q+
14:31:30 <jo> ack kai
14:31:31 <srowen> srowen: i agree with the criteria and believe we can argue we have met them
14:31:43 <dom> ack me
14:31:55 <srowen> kai: dom said we need to implement everything twice: ?
14:32:37 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a) 10 mobileOK compliant Web sites, b) 2 checkers implement each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct operation of checkers
14:32:58 <srowen> dom: this was the criteria we chose for BP document, but we don't need that criteria for mobileOK Basic
14:33:19 <srowen> I mean we should show that the main page is mobileOK on a iste, not necessarily every single page
14:34:10 <Zakim> -jo
14:34:16 <jo> zakim, code?
14:34:16 <Zakim> the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:34:22 <edm> s/iste/site/
14:34:47 <dom> ack me
14:35:32 <srowen> +1
14:35:38 <Kai_> Kai_ has joined #bpwg
14:35:52 <Kai_> zakim, Kai_ is me
14:35:52 <Zakim> +Kai_; got it
14:36:08 <dom> q+ to propose a few amendments to the proposed resolution: s/Web sites/Web sites hompages/; and ask about "2 checkers..."
14:36:11 <Kai_> nick Kai
14:36:58 <Zakim> + +020899aacc
14:37:07 <jo> zakim, aacc is jo
14:37:07 <Zakim> +jo; got it
14:38:02 <Kai> Jo, could you please repost the proposed resolution?
14:38:39 <srowen> dom: maybe just 1 checker?
14:39:07 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a) 10 mobileOK compliant Web pages, b) there exists a checker that checks each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct operation of checkers
14:39:27 <Kai> +1
14:39:30 <jo>  RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a) 10 mobileOK compliant Web pages, b) there exists a checker that checks each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct operation of checkers
14:39:52 <jo> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/
14:40:06 <srowen> jo: there are more, but they may all be editoriala
14:40:16 <srowen> (srowen: I will enter those new comments into tracker)
14:40:21 <srowen> jo: LC-1855
14:42:00 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
14:42:09 <srowen> srowen: think that maybe 'usability' is just a slightly overloaded term
14:42:23 <srowen> just wanting to say mobileOK Basic is looking for basic problems, not confirming a site is great
14:42:35 <srowen> I think the intended point is clear so would be ok with current wording
14:42:38 <srowen> jo: is there a better word?
14:42:59 <srowen> achuter: the tests are testing for the negative, for problems rather than positive things
14:43:52 <srowen> jo: think it's not so important and we can leave as is?
14:44:06 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1855 No We take your point but we don't think any ambiguity is introduced by this
14:44:08 <srowen> srowen: yes I think one can construe these as more about following specs rather than usability
14:44:16 <srowen> +1
14:44:22 <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1855 No We take your point but we don't think any ambiguity is introduced by this
14:44:45 <srowen> LC-1859 resolves last week
14:44:49 <srowen> jo: LC-1857
14:45:33 <srowen> jo: agree that we probably do want to count 302/401 'against' the page
14:45:46 <Kai> He seems to think exclusively aobut a 301 error
14:46:23 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1857 No We are keen to minimise rounds trips and reduce the overall data transfer burden which is why it is like it is
14:46:39 <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1857 No We are keen to minimise rounds trips and reduce the overall data transfer burden which is why it is like it is
14:48:45 <srowen> srowen: tester doc does define behavior of test clients, but this does not mean mobileOK Basic tests define client behavior tests
14:49:12 <srowen> jo: so we should note that the test client behavior we describe is not necessarily suggested for clients?
14:50:36 <srowen> kai: so this is resolved yes if we are making an editorial change
14:50:37 <srowen> srowen: yes
14:50:42 <jo> i/srowen: tester/Topic: LC-1856
14:50:47 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1856 Yes, we agree that it is worth clarifying that the checkers behavior should not be taken as bing indicative of how we think a client should behave in general
14:50:56 <Zakim> -shah
14:51:08 <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1856 Yes, we agree that it is worth clarifying that the checkers behavior should not be taken as bing indicative of how we think a client should behave in general
14:51:25 <jo> Topic: LC-1854
14:52:06 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
14:53:07 <srowen> jo: yes -- warn means a couple things, is it worth capturing? can't be determined, or may not be so serious?
14:53:14 <srowen> srowen: yes, think it's worth a brief note
14:53:22 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of clarification is warranted
14:54:00 <srowen> +1
14:54:11 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of clarification is warranted e.g. that it can't be determined, that it may be because it is dubious practice that in some circumstances can't be avoided
14:54:29 <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of clarification is warranted e.g. that it can't be determined, that it may be because it is dubious practice that in some circumstances can't be avoided
14:55:01 <srowen> jo: LC-1858
14:55:13 <jo> s/jo:/Topic/
14:56:15 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1858 Yes, partial, the bevavior is deliberate in order to allow for the testing of error pages. We will add a note clarifying this.
14:56:33 <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1858 Yes, partial, the bevavior is deliberate in order to allow for the testing of error pages. We will add a note clarifying this.
14:56:41 <Kai> Kai has joined #bpwg
14:56:56 <jo> Topic: Task Force Reports
14:57:34 <dom> ack me
14:57:35 <Zakim> dom, you wanted to propose a few amendments to the proposed resolution: s/Web sites/Web sites hompages/; and ask about "2 checkers..."
14:59:48 <srowen> jo: CT taskforce let group decide what to do
15:00:23 <srowen> dom: group is OK with publishing the doc provided we change the title a bit about 'challenges'
15:00:31 <srowen> jo: I meant we should say they don't need group resolutions to do this
15:01:03 <srowen> we just want something to happen quickly -- approve all this including whatever further editorial changes are needed
15:01:04 <srowen> dom: yes
15:01:46 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do and providing changes are editorial no further resolutions to publish required from BPWG
15:02:07 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do about Problem Statement Problem and providing changes are editorial no further resolutions to publish required from BPWG
15:02:16 <jo> RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do about Problem Statement Problem and providing changes are editorial no further resolutions to publish required from BPWG
15:02:41 <srowen> achuted: on accessibility, there has not been much participation
15:02:48 <srowen> s/achuted/achuter/
15:02:54 <jo> i/achuter/Topic: Accessibility Task Force
15:03:21 <srowen> there has not been much progress on the document
15:03:53 <srowen> lack of participation remains an issue
15:05:00 <srowen> concern is about spending effort to become mobileOK, but then having to do more, or undo that work, to be accessible
15:05:06 <dom> q+
15:05:09 <dom> ack me
15:05:16 <jo> ack d
15:05:38 <srowen> dom: who is participating in the accessibility TF now?
15:06:08 <srowen> achuter: myself, maybe someone from CTIC. Maybe Bruno, Dave from Segala. Little has happened yet though
15:06:17 <srowen> jo: possibly Charles as well
15:07:03 <srowen> achuter: David from Barcelona has tried to send comments but haven't gone through
15:07:33 <srowen> jo: let's discuss at F2F
15:07:57 <jo> Topic: Checker TF Report
15:08:04 <jo> scribe: jo
15:08:26 <dom> [I have started fixing of them (bugs) :) ]
15:08:26 <jo> srowen: alpha release ouyt, please play with it and report bugs, there may be a few?
15:08:31 <dom> s/of/a few of/
15:08:38 <jo> ... another release before F2F
15:08:43 <dom> q+
15:08:46 <dom> ack me
15:08:59 <jo> scribe: srowen
15:09:46 <srowen> dom: send me an e-mail if you would like the URI of a very experimental web interface to this implementation
15:10:15 <jo> Topic: F2F Agenda for Boston
15:10:32 <jo> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-Spring-2008-F2F/  Propsoed agenda
15:10:54 <jo> s/Propsoed/Proposed
15:10:54 <dom> http://www.w3.org/mid/C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B47D4091@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local
15:11:39 <DKA> +1
15:11:47 <srowen> jo: group dinner?
15:11:51 <srowen> +1
15:12:48 <srowen> jo: (reviews agenda)
15:13:33 <srowen> need to review task forces and possibly kill, say, HTML 5 taskforce if needed
15:14:54 <srowen> jo: (still reviewing agenda)
15:15:33 <srowen> we have a very large turnout, including observers
15:15:53 <dom> [it is good practice to send an ack mail to observers, fwiw]
15:16:32 <dom> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2007/registrants#mwbp Registrants for BPWG meeting
15:17:21 <jo> Need people to respond to Seoul quesionnaire, at the moment it is in doubt as we only have 8 positive responses.
15:17:26 <jo> Topic: AOB
15:17:38 <jo> [none]
15:17:42 <Zakim> -Dom
15:17:43 <Zakim> -Adam
15:17:46 <Zakim> -Kai_
15:17:48 <Zakim> -srowen
15:17:48 <Zakim> -jo
15:17:50 <Zakim> -achuter
15:17:51 <Zakim> -SeanPatterson
15:17:59 <jo> (thanks to Sean for Scribing)
15:17:59 <dom> Zakim, list attendees
15:17:59 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Ed_Mitukiewicz, Dom, jo, SeanPatterson, Adam, Kai_Dietrich, DKA, +1.650.224.aaaa, srowen, +1.781.267.aabb, shah, achuter, Kai_, +020899aacc
15:18:02 <Zakim> -DKA
15:18:04 <dom> RRSagent, draft minutes
15:18:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html dom
15:22:19 <dom> i/<srowen> ACTION-559/ScribeNick: srowen/
15:22:29 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:22:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html dom
15:23:05 <dom> i/<srowen> jo: ACTION-559/ScribeNick: srowen/
15:23:14 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:23:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html dom
15:23:59 <jo> s/ouyt/out/
15:24:48 <jo> i/Need people to respond     to Seoul/Topic: Seoul Questionnaire/
15:26:09 <jo> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:26:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html jo
15:30:04 <Zakim> -Ed_Mitukiewicz
15:30:05 <Zakim> MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended
15:30:06 <Zakim> Attendees were Ed_Mitukiewicz, Dom, jo, SeanPatterson, Adam, Kai_Dietrich, DKA, +1.650.224.aaaa, srowen, +1.781.267.aabb, shah, achuter, Kai_, +020899aacc
15:30:23 <dom> Zakim, bye
15:30:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #bpwg
15:30:26 <dom> RRSAgent, bye
15:30:26 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-actions.rdf :
15:30:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jo to progress public/private plan with Dom etc. [1]
15:30:26 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-irc#T14-23-06