See also: IRC log
<edm> due to low attendance, suggests setting up an urgent online WBS poll to decide on progressing mobileOK Basic to CR
<edm> notes that apparently there are still some comments that were not addressed to commenter's satisfaction...
replies from Johannes Koch
http://www.w3.org/mid/4720830B.7010507@fit.fraunhofer.de
<edm> Apparently the issue of (updating the resource size/count totals) has not been addressed...
<edm> notes that BPWG needs to recognize that some members of the group are not satisfied with ignoring this issue
Bryan: if the sum of a series of
the content of redirects causes content we are serving to fail
mobileOK testing and be judged not-mobileOK, then we are not
happy with that
... and the mobileOK doc as it stands stands could in fact
cause that to happen
Bryan: We understand that the
current mobileOK Basic Tests doc is sort of a snapshot based on
the state of technology as of a year ago of whatever
... so we are OK accepting it as that -- we don't want to stop
the progress of the doc in its tracks -- but we do want to
express this concern
<edm> notes that Bryan would be satisfied if his comments were addressed in the next version of mobileOK Basic - and concerns duly noted by the BPWG
<scribe> ACTION: Bryan to post follow-up to Johannes Koch open comment on public-bpwg-comments@w3.org list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-582 - Post follow-up to Johannes Koch open comment on public-bpwg-comments@w3.org list [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2007-11-01].
<edm> notes apparent consensus that Johannes' and Bryan's comments would not have to be addressed in the current version of the mobileOk Basic 1.0 tests...
<edm> ... and therefore would not impede progressing it to CR
<edm> BPWG could agree to note the implications of not addressing these comments in the current version - without changing it
Bryan: One of the implications of this is that if someone identifies content we serve as not mobileOK because of this issue, we will publicly disagree with that, which means publicly disagreeing with that part of the document.
<edm> notes that as long as Jo and Sean agree to recognize the issue and record it in the resolution to move MobileOk Basic 1.0 Tests we could have a poll on that
<scribe> ACTION: Bryan to post message to member list summarizing what he expressed during this call about open issue with current mobileOK doc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-583 - Post message to member list summarizing what he expressed during this call about open issue with current mobileOK doc. [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2007-11-01].
<scribe> ACTION: Jo to follow up on message from Bryan, as co-editor of the mobileOK doc, to record that concerns expressed by Bryan will be addressed by group later. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-584 - Follow up on message from Bryan, as co-editor of the mobileOK doc, to record that concerns expressed by Bryan will be addressed by group later. [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-11-01].
<scribe> ACTION: Smith to create WBS questionnaire to ask group about transitioning mobileOK doc to CR. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/25-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-585 - Create WBS questionnaire to ask group about transitioning mobileOK doc to CR. [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2007-11-01].
<achuter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-access/2007Oct/
achuter: was some concern about
not enough participation in Accessibility TF ...
... but over the past week, progress has been quite decent
...
... comments from Charles ...
<achuter> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest
achuter: we have also scheduled some discussion with the Education and Outreach group at the TPAC in Boston next month
edm: Any questions from anybody?
<edm> notes that some comments are still pending and will be incorporated in the new version of the document in about a week
SeanPatterson: Spent part of the call resolving that the Problem Statement doc title should be changed to Content Transformation Landscape
<edm> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ct-landscape-20071025/
SeanPatterson: which will be published as WG Note
<edm> notes that the Guidelines document would probably focus first on transformation occurring only in one place - i.e., transformation proxy
SeanPatterson: The current consensus is forming around scope of the guidelines doc to be limited to case where the transformation happens in one place, the CT proxy
<edm> apparently no news since the alpha release announcement...
<edm> suggests skipping the ACTIONS and ISSUES
<edm> notes that any and all suggestions and contributions regarding the agenda for the upcoming f2f should be submitted to the mailing list
Thanks to Ed for chairing
<edm> bye
[meeting adjourned at 00:15 JST]