13:32:05 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:32:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc 13:32:10 Zakim has joined #bpwg 13:32:33 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group F2F Day 1 13:32:37 Chair: Dan, Jo 13:32:50 RRSAgent, make log public 13:33:13 Dom: I'm speaking, how funny! 13:33:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-minutes.html dom 13:33:39 jo has joined #bpwg 13:40:05 trackbot-ng, start meeting 13:40:06 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/ 13:40:08 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:40:10 Zakim, this will be BPWG 13:40:10 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot-ng 13:40:12 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:40:14 Date: 05 November 2007 13:41:08 DKA has joined #bpwg 13:41:47 kemp has joined #bpwg 13:47:19 srowen has joined #bpwg 13:49:42 marie has joined #bpwg 13:50:41 SeanP has joined #bpwg 13:51:19 abel has joined #bpwg 13:51:22 Rodrigo has joined #bpwg 13:52:42 matt has joined #bpwg 13:53:08 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Oct/0075.html 13:54:02 chaals has joined #bpwg 13:56:28 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Oct/0075.html 13:58:23 achuter has joined #bpwg 14:00:35 Jonathan has joined #bpwg 14:05:31 Kai has joined #bpwg 14:05:41 ScribeNick: Kai 14:07:40 Introductions being made 14:09:06 ...lots of good people in the room 14:09:55 Jo: Welcome to all. there are 35 people registered, 23 member and others as observers 14:10:10 Jo: introduces the agenda 14:10:20 ...lots of time for the task forces 14:10:59 [introducing the taskforces] 14:11:56 ...dinner tonight, not sponsored 14:12:19 Dan: Reservations made for 15 people. Will do a show of hands later 14:12:33 Jo: tomorrow the topic is charter 2 14:12:54 ...need a recap of the issue, like no DDC 2 14:13:00 rob has joined #bpwg 14:13:11 ...we spend the morning on charter 2 14:13:34 [continues on agenda for tomorrow] 14:14:31 Jo: we have a tight schedule, depending on discussion 14:15:46 Dan: reiterates call for extra agenda items 14:15:59 ...we are on the cusp of entering the new charter 14:16:35 ... have a set of opportunities and all need to be focussed....if you have burning issues we need to pay attention to. Please bring them to the table. 14:17:06 ...now is the opportunity to bring up those points...within the context of the charter 14:17:30 Bryan: I did send a couple of things to the mailing list, that might fit, if we have time 14:17:35 Dan: let 14:17:42 MikeSmith has joined #bpwg 14:17:43 ...'s do that tomorrow. 14:18:00 ...it fits for charter 2, what format with the doc take 14:18:17 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:18:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-minutes.html MikeSmith 14:18:28 Topic: Checker 14:18:38 edm has joined #bpwg 14:18:51 Jonathan has joined #bpwg 14:18:56 Sean: have pretty much finished mobileOK basic and the checker is the icing. 14:19:07 ....it is in alpha state 14:19:24 ....it is an implemention in Java of the mobileOK Tests 14:19:41 ....several people in the room have been involved 14:20:15 ....status is, it has been put out, fixing bugs 14:20:25 -> http://dev.w3.org/2007/mobileok-ref/mobileOK-Basic-RI-1.0-deploy.jar Checker Download 14:20:26 ...been quiet now 14:20:35 ....it is not bug free yet though. 14:20:47 soonho has joined #bpwg 14:20:50 ...want to issue a beta release at the end of the year 14:21:02 ...hopefully we will get more feedback by then 14:21:25 ....it is will be easier because mobileOK basic should not be changing anymore... 14:21:40 ....so it should be fairly stable. Go ahead and experiment. 14:21:52 ....will be of interest to developers 14:22:01 abel_ has joined #bpwg 14:22:15 ....if you just want to check a page then the dotmobi checker is a nicer interface 14:22:31 ....the final release is still up in the air 14:22:46 ....it might be a couple of months into 2008 14:23:04 .....right now we are just trying to find bugs. Best thing to do is download the JAR file. 14:23:18 ....run at the command line 14:23:27 there is a mailing list 14:23:38 ....this is it for status. 14:23:44 ...Questions and concerns? 14:23:45 -> public-mobileOK-checker@w3.org Checker Public Mailing List 14:23:55 Dan: are the outstanding issues? 14:24:01 s/the/there 14:24:15 Sean: I don't think so, but let's check 14:25:02 [there are 4 issues] 14:25:25 Dan: what do we want to do with this checker in terms of community outreach? 14:25:53 ....I think it would reflect well on the work of this group and on the W3C? 14:26:07 Katsu has joined #bpwg 14:26:14 Sean: it doesn't really help us to produce this and then not talk about it. 14:26:27 ...we can post this in our blog and the company blog 14:26:48 ...next week in Boston at the Mobile Internet conference we will introduce this as well 14:27:09 Marie: Next tuesday, Nov 13, we will announce mobileOK as CR. 14:27:28 ...Janet will ask for testimonials to support the press release 14:27:30 Present: Ed, SergeHaumont, Rodrigo, Abel, SeanOwen, AaronKemp, BryanSullivan, MikeSmith, Kai, Jo, DanA, Alan, SoonHo, Jonathan, Francois, Marie-Claire, SeanPatterson, RobFinean, KatsutoshiAsaki, SteveBratt, MarkBakies, GeoffFreed, Bruno 14:27:44 ....the text needs a littlebit of a revamp, but will be final soon 14:27:55 ...check later today for the almost final text 14:28:29 Dan: I wonder if we can do any extra PR of the reference implementation of the checker? Can we emphasize that there is code that wraps up mobileOK? 14:28:42 Marie: It is part of the PR 14:29:20 Sean: Once this has gone through Betaquality tests, we will replace the current implemenation on the web. this should happen by teh end of the year. 14:29:39 Jo: It already is backed by the current code 14:30:03 ...testing google's site 14:30:04 drooks has joined #bpwg 14:31:36 Bryan: looks like you have a server that pulls content and checks it. Is there a plan to have this on a laptop as well? 14:31:42 Sean: Yes. It is a library. 14:31:53 abel has joined #bpwg 14:32:06 [checking again] 14:32:49 [looking at the results of the checker test] 14:33:21 http://www.w3.org/2007/10/mobileok 14:33:23 google.mobi/m passed 14:33:39 s/.mobi/.com 14:34:11 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:34:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-minutes.html MikeSmith 14:34:16 Dan: I am filled with emotion...in the beginning we talked about all this....now it is here...the vision has been created. 14:34:54 Jo: Let's test the w3c site 14:35:59 Dan has tears of joy in his eyes 14:36:33 Sean: It would be nice to have this common reference implementation 14:37:24 Jo: checking t-online 14:38:05 ..not working..but it is an alpha release. 14:38:25 Sean: well, not unexpected. 14:38:52 Jo: we should come back to discussing what we will put in place for a long term maintanence program for this 14:39:09 ...is there anything else on the checker? 14:39:44 ....this is a good example of how a checker taskforce can do quick and good work. The group needs to endorse this product. 14:40:04 Dan: You are thinking of a resolution? 14:40:18 ...that would be valuable to do at this meeting. 14:40:37 Jo: We need to think of how to do this. What do they need to endorse it? 14:40:51 ...in fact we should record this as an issue 14:41:25 Bryan: Is there a plan for how experience is gathered? 14:41:38 ...how do we get the changes back in the process? 14:42:06 Dan: One issue is how to get this back into mobileOK and that is different from issues raised against the checker. 14:42:13 Bryan mentions concern about issues with the checker and mobileOK that might potentially cause "boats to scrape the bottom" 14:42:17 ...both things are worth discussing. 14:42:46 ... in terms of endorsing the checker we need a period of review. We can't expect members to review the code. 14:43:29 Abel: we have been working on a developers manual. 14:43:49 ...we have changed some things recently. Next week we expect to publish the first draft. 14:44:25 Sean: there will not be a problem with the implementation or documentation. We have Bugzilla for all bugs. 14:44:52 ....bugfixing is a bit of a separate question compared to future maintainanence 14:44:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Checker/Overview.html 14:45:12 ....for now there will be enough of us around. 14:45:40 Kai : one of the questions we have to address is, Who will be responsible for this thing? 14:45:47 ... under whose auspices? 14:46:04 Scribenick: MikeSmith 14:46:18 testing 14:46:28 jo : I would probably be appropriate for someone to take the lead ... 14:46:39 ... somebody who is not on the Checker TF ... 14:46:55 ... somebody to lead on taking care of the signoff criteria ... 14:46:55 Scribenick: Kai 14:46:58 ACTION: Dan to raise ISSUE on setting criteria for group sign off on mobileOK checker once the task force says it is done with the work 14:46:58 Created ACTION-586 - Raise ISSUE on setting criteria for group sign off on mobileOK checker once the task force says it is done with the work [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2007-11-12]. 14:47:19 -> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__all__&product=mobileOK+Basic+checker&content= Bugzilla for Checker 14:47:31 Mike: Is there a list of who is on the TF? 14:47:57 ...so people have a contact 14:48:17 Jo: I think that's it for the checker. 14:48:37 Topic: Accessibility TF 14:48:38 I'll update the Checker TF page with list of names of BPWG members who have been involved in the Checker TF work 14:50:41 Alan: (showing a presenation) 14:50:58 ....started this TF in July 14:51:34 ...the basic idea is to allow access for as many people as possible, regardless of disability 14:52:12 ...users have different problems...sensory such as vision or hearing....motor as in using a keyboard or mouse 14:52:36 ...technological such as old computers and slow connections 14:52:53 ...some disabilities there fore are due to the user some due to the device. 14:53:15 ...mobileusers may use screen readers or magnifiers 14:53:41 ...some may use large keyboard if they have motor related disabilities 14:54:13 ....there are lots of parallels between disabled users and mobile users only that disables users are involuntarily disabled. 14:54:37 ....mobile users choose to use a mobile device and therefore will not have a mouse 14:55:16 ...they may use a screen magnifier..there may be no sound or be in a noise space where you can't hear anything. 14:55:45 ....unlike mobileOK accessibility may be a legal requirement, as in the US, the UK and the EU has made it a priority. 14:56:35 Jo: if it had been mandated for the CA fires for public sites to be mobileOK to provide emergency information 14:57:13 Bruno: (introducing himself) 14:58:05 Present+ Chaals 14:58:53 ...an example in Stockholm was to buy busticket. You can only do it via mobile. 14:59:20 ...so there is an increasing amout of mobile access and here we have a good start. 14:59:57 ...looking forward for this european law being passed. It is a resonable set of requirements. 15:00:41 alan: mobile awareness, accessibility is a good thing to have. 15:00:55 ... it is a requirement because users don't have a choice. 15:01:11 ....there are different stake holders 15:01:55 Scribenick: MikeSmith 15:02:31 Alan: Has it been considered by the Checker TF that some tests may have already been implemented by Accessibility checking tools? 15:02:48 jo : Very good thought ... I wish somebody has asked that a year ago 15:02:59 chaals : I have something like that in my back pocket ... 15:03:10 ... but the development is all being done in Spanish 15:04:43 [/me is very worried if authoring tool vendors are not considered to be a critical stakeholder] 15:06:05 Bryan: There is perhaps another stakeholder you might want to add: Service providers (e.g., mobile operators) 15:06:23 q+ to ask about authoring tool vendors 15:07:43 ACTION: Mike to upload Alan's slides to W3C webspace 15:07:43 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Mike 15:07:43 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mchadwic, mike) 15:07:49 ACTION: Michael to upload Alan's slides to W3C webspace 15:07:49 Sorry, couldn't find user - Michael 15:07:57 ACTION: Michael(tm) to upload Alan's slides to W3C webspace 15:07:57 Created ACTION-587 - Upload Alan's slides to W3C webspace [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2007-11-12]. 15:08:30 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20071031#audience Use Cases for Accessibility Document 15:09:04 Scribenick: SeanP 15:10:12 Alan: Stakeholders need non-discrimination, content providers and tool vendors need advice on how to leverage investment 15:11:04 Alan: 2 documents: accessability guidelines and MWBP 15:11:34 ...Need a document to bring the two together to avoid duplication, etc. 15:12:25 Alan: What can MWI and WAI do: Explain synergies between the two 15:14:27 Some technical difficulties 15:15:14 Dan: How can we put some of the accessibility stuff into the document we are creating as part of charter 2? 15:15:32 ...Can we have the discussion tomorrow? 15:15:39 j1 has joined #bpwg 15:15:59 ...I see a trend toward creating rich apps for mobile browsers 15:16:47 ... If we are going to encourage developers to create rich apps for mobile devices, we should tell them how to do it in an accessible context 15:18:44 Alan: Mentioned ARAA document 15:18:50 s/ARAA/ARIA/ 15:19:22 ARIA -> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria 15:19:47 [it is a collection of specs, actually, but that gives a reasonable introduction] 15:20:58 Alan: We're creating a document that contains: user experience (ex: large pages are hard for users with restricted vision) 15:21:42 ... Color difficult for colorblind people and users with black/white screens 15:22:19 ... Information is there in document, but needs more work to make it useful 15:23:01 ... document covers each of the mobileOk best practices 15:24:33 jo has joined #bpwg 15:25:07 Dan: the publication of the accessibility document can give a idea of the relationship between the BP document and the WAI document 15:26:09 Alan: example: the BP document is concerned with devices that don't have color, the WAI document is concerned with colorblind people 15:27:03 Alan: next section in document: How WCAG compliance can benefit mobile users 15:28:12 Alan: MWBP contains unhelpful "related to" references that are confusing 15:29:00 Alan: Out of scope for accessibility document: making content accessible on mobile devices 15:31:45 Alan: Task force history: started July 2007, several agreed to take part, Alan got little feedback until recently, getting feedback from new members now 15:32:09 billyjack has joined #bpwg 15:32:30 MikeSmith has joined #bpwg 15:32:47 Jo: (Looking at mailing list) Looks like you're now getting more participation 15:33:12 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:33:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-minutes.html MikeSmith 15:33:46 [break for coffee] 15:38:48 srowen has left #bpwg 16:05:12 Jo: Moving on to discuss where we are now (accessibility) 16:06:29 Jo: Alan has done an amazing job. Document looks good and we need to capitalize on what he has done so far. Need to get more people involved. 16:07:52 Alan: (Going over contents of accessibility document) 16:08:15 j1 has joined #bpwg 16:09:02 Jo: How much input have you had from accessibility people? 16:09:20 Alan: Very little so far. 16:11:04 Jo: do we need endorsement from WAI? 16:13:28 Alan: Has had positive communication with the WAI board 16:13:57 ...The WAI education and outreach board has been very enthusiastic 16:14:14 Present+ Shah 16:15:06 Jo: Saying that this is a very important piece of work. Has some support of WAI 16:15:28 Jo: How can we take this work forward? 16:15:55 ... Situation with task force--task forces must have 3 active members 16:16:25 ...We don't have three active members of the accessibility task force 16:16:53 ...I think we should take this into the working group as a whole and work on it as a whole group 16:17:18 +1 to Jo's proposals. 16:17:18 ... We should publish the accessibility document now, even though it has some holes 16:17:59 ... propose that we close down the task force 16:18:27 Dan: Supports Jo's proposal 16:19:05 Kai has joined #bpwg 16:19:23 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close Accessibility Task Force with a view to continuing the work in the main body of the group 16:19:36 Bruno: Support it as well. Should have some sort of dialog about it. 16:19:48 +1 16:20:19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Publish document as a FPWD pending adding section of future plans ref WCAG 2.0 16:20:28 Dan: should have some contact with chair of hypertext working group 16:21:11 Rodrigo has joined #bpwg 16:21:42 Alan: Seems strange for entire group to be working on something that another group has as its main job 16:22:37 Charles: In many ways in agreement with Jo; should have agreement with WAI; usual way that that is done within W3C is a joint task force 16:23:13 ...Don't think we should go to first public working draft without involvement of WAI 16:23:33 Dan: joint task force seems even more complex 16:23:57 ... We can show that BPWG is working on this topic. 16:24:25 srowen has joined #bpwg 16:25:03 ScribeNick: Kai 16:25:06 Charles: Setting up a joint task force is pretty lightweight. Don't think that we should do it without WAI involvement 16:25:45 Dan: my concern is that we set up another set of meetings or calls that will happen at a different time. 16:25:54 ALTERNATE PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Coordinate with WAI to jointly Publish document as a FPWD 16:25:57 ...if we do it in the group, we discuss it within the group. 16:26:08 ...so I like taking it into the main group. 16:26:39 Chaals: I suggest from the mobile web side our whole group is the task force and we can invite folks to sign up 16:27:01 ....there is some overhead in coordination 16:27:15 Jo: alan you haven't said anything? 16:27:35 Alan: It seems to me that is something done jointly with WAI and should be done here in this group 16:27:53 ...WAI doesn't know much about our work but we know their work. 16:28:11 Dan: could we do this by using the coordination group for this very purpose? 16:28:50 chaals: That should provide the basis for coordination. WCAG is quite old and so there won't be a lot of question about this document. 16:29:27 Jo: we have two proposed resolutions. is there a virtue in keeping the TF going? 16:29:40 ...if not I would like us to take the first resoltion. 16:30:15 s/resoltion/resolution 16:30:39 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: With thanks to Alan close Accessibility Task Force and continue the work in the main body of the group 16:30:52 +1 16:31:03 +1 16:31:05 +1 16:31:07 +1 16:31:12 =1 16:31:14 RESOLUTION: With thanks to Alan close Accessibility Task Force and continue the work in the main body of the group 16:31:59 Jo: now we did to figure out when we publish the first public draft of this document 16:32:30 ...and we should also look for input prior to that first draft. 16:33:04 Alan: tomorrow the education and outreach working group will be looking at the document 16:33:06 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2007/11f2f#Agenda 16:33:31 Chaals: WAI has a technical and an outreach activity? Where does it belong to? 16:33:53 ...this we should figure out and who to coordinate with. 16:34:16 Jo: The flavor of the doc is primarily an outreach document 16:34:29 Alan: The bulks is technical in nature but the intent is outreach 16:34:49 Jo: How do we get to the outreach people? 16:34:58 alan: I will be speaking ot them at lunch 16:35:29 Dan: Do we have to have a fully joined meeting? I think we can just nominate people to get this done? 16:35:51 jo: Alan, Dan and I will talk to whoever is interested at lunch. 16:36:14 ...I also want to resolve to publish this as a first public working draft. 16:36:25 ...so we can get it published within a month. 16:36:51 Chaal: the core is the technical correspondence and so I think it is more a technical document. 16:37:18 ...so the first coordination needs to be carried forward with teh techical acivity in WCAG 16:37:19 ACTION: Jo with Dan to raise this document at next HCG meeting informing them of our intentions and soliciting input 16:37:19 Created ACTION-588 - With Dan to raise this document at next HCG meeting informing them of our intentions and soliciting input [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-11-12]. 16:38:34 Jo: we might want to look at this document in detail later to see what we can do with it. 16:38:43 ...so we should focus on what we want to with it. 16:39:05 Bruno: a few facts. The chance of getting feedback is better with the WCAG outreach group. 16:39:24 ...it is more important to get the coordination going is more important than with whom we do it 16:39:58 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending discussion with WAI Outreach Group on Technical Correctness of the document, aim to publish a draft within a month 16:40:01 q+ to say I supposeit is WAI's job to decide who they think we need to talk to, and we can address that via HTCG as well as talking to people here. 16:40:02 ....my biggest worry has been the total lack of mobile topics and so we improve their future release by referencing mobile topics that they find useful. 16:40:18 ack chaals 16:40:18 chaals, you wanted to say I supposeit is WAI's job to decide who they think we need to talk to, and we can address that via HTCG as well as talking to people here. 16:40:44 Chaals: we need to clarify what this document is. 16:40:53 ack mikesmith 16:40:53 MikeSmith, you wanted to ask about authoring tool vendors 16:41:05 ack me 16:41:23 q- 16:41:46 Jo: how about that resolution up there? 16:42:09 Chaals: In the end WAI will figure it out. We should just get the blessing soon. 16:42:19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending discussion with WAI Technical Correctness of the document, aim to publish a draft within a month 16:42:56 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending discussion with WAI on the Technical Correctness of the document, aim to publish a draft within a month 16:43:44 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending discussion with WAI on the Technical Correctness of the document, publish a draft within a month 16:44:04 Bryan: will there be a comment period? 16:44:30 ...we have been working internally on a recommendation in terms of our style guide and I need to seek input. 16:44:46 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Pending discussion with WAI on the Technical Correctness of the document, publish a first public working draft within a month 16:44:49 Jo: A fair point, but it is a public draft and so we are solciting input. 16:44:54 +1 16:44:59 +1 16:45:28 Bruno: A question on procedure. we have two chairs. One of them could present the position of the group tomorrow. 16:45:49 Jo: We'll play it by ear and see where we get to. 16:45:53 RESOLUTION: Pending discussion with WAI on the Technical Correctness of the document, publish a first public working draft within a month 16:46:17 Jo: thank you alan (applause) 16:47:05 j1, srowen - I added a "People" section to the Checker TF page - feel free to change/add names if you like 16:47:06 Jo: Rhys will not be available this afternoon, which is a problem. We need to move the agenda around. 16:47:14 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Checker/Overview.html#people 16:48:00 ...rhys will be around tomorrow for a lengthy and detailed discussion of what the options are for leading to a publication for the guidelines document. 16:48:15 s/for the/of the 16:48:52 Dan: We need to make sure he can be there tomorrow. 16:49:34 Jo: we may need to move charter 2 discussion to today. 16:50:12 ...we have about 45 min and we can get into the discussion of getting into tools and HTML 5 points. 16:51:09 Topic: Techniques 16:51:52 Jo: This is Chaals' baby. 16:52:36 ...this has been on the agenda for over half a year and we should get rid of it, since nothing has really happened. 16:52:56 q+ to comment on this 16:53:08 ack mik 16:53:08 MikeSmith, you wanted to comment on this 16:53:55 Mike: last time we discussed this the only person interested was Chaals and it is likely to assume that nothign else will happen with this. If he wants to he can reopen it. It is time to put it to rest. 16:54:24 q+ to ask if we want to create some moderated public space (wiki?) for technique contributions during Charter 2? 16:54:41 Bryan: I think that going forward, developers who want to comply to best practices, it is not clear how to comply. 16:54:46 q+ 16:55:30 Jo: the problem we have we all feel that kind of advice is needed, but we have not been able to find an effective way to bring this forward. It is one of the undead and we don't need theundead on our agenda. 16:55:50 Ed: do want to create some continuation of the techniques for charter 2? 16:56:13 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Put techniques in moth balls noting that they are no longer actively maintained and noting that there is a possibility of them being reactivated at some point 16:56:24 ...now that we gone public, do we have a better forum? does it makes sense? which format should it take? 16:56:49 Dan: is there some way to donate the work to some other group? 16:57:24 ...there are a number of activities that kind of replicate the work we have done and it woudl be a shame ot have our work not contributing to this? 16:57:35 Jo: W3C copyright would have to be sorted out. 16:57:59 Dan: I am thinking in particular of dotmobi. 16:58:21 ...its gaining quite a reputation....and so does Google.... 16:58:49 ...I'd be happy to step forward and offer this. there are number of places where it could go. 16:59:03 Sean: Can we just leave it where it is and say it is not being maintained. 16:59:41 Jo: that's what we would do and I have say that Dan's idea is not a bad one. Perhaps he can take an action to take care of this. 17:00:24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Put techniques in moth balls noting that they are no longer actively maintained and noting that there is a possibility of them being reactivated at some point 17:00:30 +1 17:00:31 ScribeNicK: alan 17:00:37 RESOLUTION: Put techniques in moth balls noting that they are no longer actively maintained and noting that there is a possibility of them being reactivated at some point 17:00:56 scribenick: achuter 17:02:56 ACTION: Dan to look for one or more likely candidates to adopt techniques and make arrangements ref copyright and attribution 17:02:57 Created ACTION-589 - Look for one or more likely candidates to adopt techniques and make arrangements ref copyright and attribution [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2007-11-12]. 17:04:08 [Mike updates techniques page] 17:04:10 drooks has left #bpwg 17:05:28 ACTION: Michael(TM) to propose text indicating current state of techniques wiki 17:05:28 Created ACTION-590 - Propose text indicating current state of techniques wiki [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2007-11-12]. 17:06:03 topic Tools Task Force 17:06:12 topic: Tools Task Force 17:06:17 Present+ Jose 17:08:18 Sean: This TF has been overshadowed by checker TF. 17:08:29 Jo: Was more about ahouthoring tools. 17:09:24 s/ahouthoring/authoring 17:09:58 Dan: If people are ambivalent about it, better to do away with it. 17:10:09 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Kill Tools Task Force, no volunteers are available to lead it 17:10:36 RESOLUTION: Kill Tools Task Force, no volunteers are available to lead it 17:10:58 topic: HTML5 Task Force 17:11:15 q+ 17:11:31 q- 17:11:31 ack ed 17:12:54 Dan: Need for some people who are in this group and the HTML5 group. 17:13:02 q+ to say that it seems much easier to suggest a taskforce than to work in it. If there is no interest we should kill it. 17:13:18 ack me 17:13:46 Jo: Arun is not able to lead it. So we need someone else 17:15:16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Absent Dan finding a leader for HTML5 Task Force within 2 weeks - Task force to be abandoned 17:15:39 ack kai 17:15:39 Kai, you wanted to say that it seems much easier to suggest a taskforce than to work in it. If there is no interest we should kill it. 17:15:58 Dan: Work is important (mobile use cases for HTML5) and we need to keep on with it. 17:16:19 Kai: Nobody is going to do it so it's a dead duck. 17:17:28 [Shah and Dan volunteer, but no leader] 17:18:08 Shah: Recent talk about things that affect mobile context. Important to follow it. 17:18:48 [I do think it is quite important that someone follows the HTML5 work pretty closely] 17:19:34 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Abandonl HTML5 TF as there is insufficient support for it in group 17:19:42 +1 17:19:48 +1 17:20:03 q+ 17:20:12 (HTML 5 doesn't seem at all keen on thinking about mobile -- don't see a point in fighting this battle more than we have) 17:21:17 ack me 17:21:36 [but having the Web split between mobile-XHTML and desktop-HTML5 is quite contrary to one of the mission of this group, I think] 17:21:44 As I've mentioned in the past, I think it might be more productive for reps of member companies in the BPWG to also join the HTMLWG and participate in it directly. 17:21:46 s/mission/missions/ 17:22:49 we appreciate this Dom, but if no one puts their hand up to work on the group then 17:22:54 we don't have a task force 17:23:05 it's not that we are not intersted, just incapable 17:23:08 yeah, I understand; I guess I just find it a bit disappointing... 17:23:12 me too 17:23:34 RESOLUTION: Abandon HTML5 TF as there is insufficient support for it in group 17:24:08 [break for lunch] 17:38:54 Rodrigo has left #bpwg 18:35:33 chaals has joined #bpwg 18:37:09 edm has joined #bpwg 18:37:21 scribe: edm 18:37:31 scribenick: edm 18:37:36 Topic: Charter 2 18:38:01 [note change from published agenda - CT to take place tomorrow morning] 18:39:35 achuter has joined #bpwg 18:40:16 http://www.w3.org/2007/03/MWBP-WG-charter.html 18:41:28 DKA: BP document should articulate to the developer community how to develop content and applications that would work across a wide range of devices... 18:42:25 DKA: ... and how to take advantage of capabilities of specific devices. 18:43:00 DKA: e.g., iPhone Facebook - as an example of such an application 18:43:28 q+ 18:43:59 Kai: our job is to point out how to do this cleanly - based on published standards 18:44:15 ack sro 18:45:02 SeanP: BPWG should focus on standards and interoperability - rather than cool hacks 18:45:48 q- 18:46:06 SeanP: ... thus perhaps our ultimate goal is to make mobile-specific authoring obsolete 18:47:07 s/SeanP/SRO/ 18:47:17 s/SeanP/SRO 18:47:37 DKA: we need to look at specific areas where we could make recommendations - e.g., using scripting on constrained mobile devices 18:49:36 srowen: we should stay away from device-specific applications 18:49:47 q+ 18:50:18 jcantera has joined #bpwg 18:50:34 q+ 18:50:35 DKA: we already told people how to do the lowest-common-denominator stuff - need to look forward 18:50:52 ack j 18:50:59 q? 18:51:00 q+ 18:51:05 Kai: mobile web is still the focus 18:51:07 ack k 18:52:45 Rodrigo has joined #bpwg 18:52:53 Bryan: we need to go beyond MobileOk Basic - to make content more accessible and use web wide techniques 18:53:59 jo: I would like to see some specific examples of what we might want to recommend 18:54:32 jo: ... and need to figure out what might be testable 18:54:34 rob has joined #bpwg 18:55:21 jo: we should try to sketch out what the BP2.0 document may look like 18:55:45 chaals has joined #bpwg 18:55:51 ack me 18:55:55 q+ 18:56:34 DKA: I am actually apprehensive about a growing number of Iphone specific cool applications 18:57:22 q- 18:57:37 srowen: let's have a few examples of what BP2.0 may be about 18:59:13 DKA: some of the iPhone browser specific features could be illustrative of what we may need to do to make things work across diverse devices - e.g., screen orientation 19:00:31 DKA: ... codifying some of that and suggesting how this could be done should be included in BP2.0 19:01:37 jo: let's come up with 5 specific examples of what could be included in Bp2.0 19:06:12 DKA: setting up a device-optimized viewport - e.g., size pop-ups/layers to fit on screen 19:06:53 Kai: solve the top left navigation problem 19:07:08 DKA: use of pop up menus 19:07:43 DKA: conservative use of XHR 19:08:59 DKA: adapating to screen orientation events 19:10:22 Kai: image cropping and resizing 19:10:51 http://developer.apple.com/iphone/designingcontent.html 19:11:43 DKA: usability features - in the absence of multiple overlapping windows 19:12:04 q+ 19:12:23 q+ to speak about clear guidelines for device manufacturers 19:12:50 q? 19:13:42 Bryan: need to address growing capabilities of devices and suggest how some of the existing technologies should be used - e.g., cookies 19:14:32 q+ 19:15:30 Kai: would like to see guidelines on what we expect devices to be capable of - in the mobile web context 19:16:05 present+ ph_from_1400 19:16:20 ack kai 19:16:20 Kai, you wanted to speak about clear guidelines for device manufacturers 19:17:32 DKA: e.g., multiple techniques could be used to detect screen orientation - which do we want to recommend? 19:20:00 q- 19:20:35 q? 19:21:29 ack j 19:22:37 edm: we should be examining variability of certain features - i.e., support differences that make a difference to content and application authors 19:24:18 edm: ... point out what the typical variations might be and what could be done to exploit these 19:25:15 Bryan: we should also examine "web consistent" design techniques - e.g., responsible use of redircts and cookies 19:27:03 q+ to ask if it is a good idea of limiting again 19:27:46 Bruno: we should not forget less advanced delivery contexts - e.g., slower networks, less advanced devices 19:28:34 DKA: data roaming presents a number of interesting challlenges 19:29:59 ack kai 19:30:01 Bryan: also how do applications and service providers be made more context aware - considering that some of the relevant info may be available on the device 19:30:01 Kai, you wanted to ask if it is a good idea of limiting again 19:30:55 Bryan: ....e.g., location, roaming context 19:32:34 DKA: need to help spread the one web mentality ... 19:32:56 scribe:rob 19:33:03 scribenick:rob 19:33:04 scribenick: rob 19:34:00 jo: do the 17 items raised (above) meet the "Owen challenge"? 19:36:00 q? 19:36:00 shaal: can we really add value in the context awareness category? 19:36:16 q+ 19:36:43 kai: don't think these 17 things amount to a goal 19:36:45 q+ bryan 19:37:03 ack bry 19:38:31 bryan: WRT focus of BP 2.0 should focus on where we can add value to 1.0 as well as going into new areas 19:38:58 s/shaal/shah/ 19:39:19 ack edm 19:40:01 DKA: agree need focus and a mission for where to go 19:40:06 q+ 19:40:41 edm: yes need continuity with 1.0 19:40:56 ... remember we focussed on lowest common denominator 19:41:18 ... so today we should look at what's changed 19:41:52 ... and find the variability (eg Ajax) 19:42:28 ... and ways to discover the capabilities and take advantage of them. 19:42:51 ... And what is there we have never considered before? 19:43:21 ... Eg BP1.0 says don't rely on cookies returning - is that true any more? 19:43:24 chaals has joined #bpwg 19:43:45 q? 19:43:49 ack jo 19:44:42 jo: reason why BP1.0 worked was it was mostly "don't do this unless" wheras we're now looking at "do do this if" which is harder 19:44:59 ... and crucially we have no editor for this doc yet 19:45:34 ... so we should look at Bryan's doc next 19:45:48 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Nov/att-0001/AT_T_Comments_to_MWBP_1.0.htm Bryan's Document 19:47:18 Bryan: doc needs a better intro and amplification of recommendations 19:48:52 ... (walk-through of doc above) 19:51:24 ... another example of improving BP1.0 - we say "don't use tables" but not what to do instead to present tabular relationships 19:55:58 q+ 19:56:57 q+ 19:57:04 ... think there is a lot of good work in the existing doc, it just needs to be updated a bit 19:57:12 q+ 19:57:24 ack k 19:57:57 DKA: take care not to confuse/contradict priorities already in mobileOK 19:59:16 Kai: focus on the needs of the content providers - who do want to create marketable stuff 20:00:02 ... the clearer the pay-off the more sucessful it will be 20:00:16 q? 20:00:34 ack jo 20:00:51 - we need to simply put the web on a mobile device 20:00:51 - we need to "follow the money" 20:00:51 - we cannot "merely" focus on developers, because developers are not the ones who get content into the web - it is the marketing people who do so ultimately. 20:00:51 - we need to identify clear payoffs for content providers to follow the best practices that go beyond "merely" producing clean content 20:00:52 jo: thanks Bryan for this doc 20:00:52 - we need to allow clean ways of breaking out of the standard methods 20:01:17 q+ bruno 20:02:09 q- 20:02:18 ... speaking as editor of BP1.0 we know it has failings and does need reorganisation along the lines of Bryan's suggestion 20:02:35 ... however, is this our top priority right now? 20:03:22 ... because it will take a lot of work and time to come to a new consensus with BP2.0 20:04:23 bruno: thanks Bryan, the doc is a good indication of where help is still reauired 20:05:26 ... would like to see a list of what really are the most common problems content providers face? 20:06:01 q+ 20:06:17 ack bruno 20:06:23 Bryan: intent is not to rewrite BP1.0 but build on it. recognise how difficult it is though. 20:07:09 ... but still is a need to move up from lowest-common-denominator 20:08:07 ... ATTM has a need for this, even just for their content developer community 20:09:10 srowen: BP1.0 is already pretty good, the delta could be smaller than we imagine 20:09:35 ack srowen 20:09:57 ... knowing how long BP1.0 took to deliver, may be better to go for a new document - "Dan's document" 20:11:34 DKA: Bryan's doc does contain a bunch of new stuff which with the 17 points could be a new "advanced" document that sits alongside BP1.0 20:11:41 q+ 20:12:27 ... you could simply say "advanced browsers are capable of displaying desktop content... job done" 20:12:53 ... but market doesn't bear that out - eg http://iphone.facebook.com 20:13:39 ... so doc would recommend how to sparkle in the context of these advanced browsers 20:13:56 q? 20:13:58 ack jo 20:14:09 jo: in danger of preaching to the choir? 20:14:32 ... don't these content providers know this stuff already? 20:15:09 ... just recently killed the "techniques" item 20:15:12 ack me 20:15:28 q? 20:15:28 q+ bryan 20:16:25 q+ to ask, at end of the day, with BP 2.0 having been created, what will have changed? 20:16:31 ack jc 20:17:04 [to illustrate what jose is saying, "full-web" mobile browsers rely on
to allow for smart-zooming] 20:17:08 ack br 20:17:16 jcantera: best practices for advanced browsers are well-known for mobile content providers but for the general webspace people need more help 20:17:19 q+ 20:17:54 ack ka 20:17:54 Kai, you wanted to ask, at end of the day, with BP 2.0 having been created, what will have changed? 20:19:50 Bryan: doc is a fairly thorough review of the BP1.0 omissions and there's probably more stuff missing. how this is all addressed is up for discussion. 20:20:46 DKA: if developers are already writing iphone apps, then a doc to say "here's how to make it work on an N95 and more..." is valuable 20:21:00 ack jo 20:21:02 q+ ph 20:21:02 q? 20:21:20 Katsu has joined #bpwg 20:21:51 q+ to ask BP 1.1 20:21:54 FYI: iPhone Dev Center -> http://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/ 20:22:29 jo: original BP1.0 doc was to make things possible. On the other hand is there a real problem needing solving to teach iphone developers how other browsers work? 20:22:46 q? 20:22:49 ack ph 20:23:46 Philip: motivation for BP2.0 is same as 1.0 - far more people don't understand smartphone capabilities and browsers than do 20:23:58 q+ bryan 20:24:04 present+ Dom_from_1515 20:25:20 q? 20:25:23 ack dom 20:25:23 dom, you wanted to ask BP 1.1 20:25:50 dom: recognise how things have changed in smartphones - developers do need to recognise there is a vast difference in what you can do in a smartphone vs traditional mobile websites 20:26:10 Bryan: story started in BP1.0 is *not* over 20:26:19 [dom makes distinction between a BP 1.1 and BP2.0 which he says is about Web applications i.e. collections pf web pages and how they work together, whereas BP 1 was about single Web pages] 20:26:27 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will work on a document for "Mobile Web Applications Best Practices" and a revision to "Mobile Web Best Practices". 20:27:40 ... to keep progress going we need to address how to scale content to suit more advanced display contexts 20:27:55 DKA: and we need an editor 20:28:59 jo: any doc that we write needs an editor to shape the scope and drive discussion on 20:29:41 ... and we've been round this discussion for long enough to take a decision this afternoon 20:30:08 [break for coffee] 21:10:26 q+ 21:10:42 ack bryan 21:11:18 ack kai 21:11:48 scribenick: srowen 21:11:57 scribe: srowen 21:12:15 ScribeNick: srowen 21:13:28 DKA: what about this proposed resolution? 21:13:36 q+ Kai 21:13:37 jo: useful to separate two perspectives, yes 21:13:50 ack kai 21:14:08 Kai: not sure if need to worry about revising MWBP -- focus on the future 21:14:23 (srowen: +1 to the as-yet-unpasted proposed resolution) 21:14:34 DKA: I think we can't work on both at once 21:14:51 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will separate the work into "Mobile Web Applications Best Practices" and a revision to "Mobile Web Best Practices" (1.1) 21:14:54 DKA: but should focus on MWABP first 21:14:59 (srowen: +1 to that too) 21:15:33 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Best Practices for Mobile Applications Comes First 21:15:48 ack jca 21:15:50 jcantera: about the 'MWABP' name -- are we saying the MWBPs are not suitable for mobile web applications? 21:15:56 don't agree with the name 21:16:08 DKA: this comes from a definition of web apps that dom put forth earlier 21:16:21 scripting, XML, AJAX, etc. 21:16:41 q+ 21:16:43 as opposed to MWBP's focus, which was the page and markup 21:17:02 jcantera: yes but mobile applications can be created with MWBPs 21:17:19 second document is intended to reach mobile applications too 21:17:46 q+ to ask how the scope of BPWG2 work would relate to what WAFWG and UbiWeb are expected to do? 21:17:54 Bryan: intent was to take recommendations into a different space, from static pages and apps to interactive, autonomous, AJAX apps 21:18:27 is the vision limited to only HTTP-based apps? AJAX-based? or are we talking about a new class of applications outside the browser context? 21:18:40 DKA: I think we are still thinking within the browser 21:19:07 Bryan: what about a widget operating outside the browser but using markup -- is that an application? 21:19:09 DKA: yes 21:19:28 q? 21:19:30 q+ Kai 21:19:35 premature to make recommendations about 'widget frameworks' I think 21:19:37 ack Jo 21:19:37 ack ed 21:19:38 edm, you wanted to ask how the scope of BPWG2 work would relate to what WAFWG and UbiWeb are expected to do? 21:20:02 edm: 'web applications' may create some confusion related to WAFWG and ubiweb 21:20:16 DKA: I think this aligns us with WAF actually 21:20:22 who has a definiiton? 21:20:24 q+ to ask if we are not artificially limiting the scope by using web application? Even it may be what we are talking about. 21:20:57 ack me 21:20:57 Kai, you wanted to ask if we are not artificially limiting the scope by using web application? Even it may be what we are talking about. 21:21:00 "With the ubiquity of Web browsers and Web document formats across a range of platforms and devices, many developers are using the Web as an application environment. Examples of applications built on rich Web clients include reservation systems, online shopping or auction sites, games, multimedia applications, calendars, maps, chat applications, weather displays, clocks, interactive design applications, stock tickers, currency converters and data entry/display system 21:21:00 s. 21:21:03 Kai: are we artificially limiting ourselves? we all have a picture of what a web app is but maybe there is more to it 21:21:03 Web client applications typically have some form of programmatic control. They may run within the browser or within another host application. A Web client application is typically downloaded on demand each time it is "executed", allowing a developer to update the application for all users as needed. Such applications are usually smaller than regular desktop applications in terms of code size and functionality, and may have interactive rich graphical interfaces. " 21:21:04 http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/admin/charter.html 21:21:32 abel_ has joined #bpwg 21:21:51 [the noise of reading follows...] 21:21:55 q+ 21:22:34 ack me 21:22:35 Kai: for example, bandwidth issues have nothing to do with web apps -- we'd be precluded from talking about bandwidth 21:23:26 DKA: thinking of mouseover, event flows, triggering requests to server, which entails bandwidth concerns 21:23:35 ack k 21:23:52 q+ to say the mwabp wouldn't be a superset of bp 21:23:53 Kai: suggesting that our scope is larger than web apps 21:24:03 q? 21:24:13 DKA: the term 'web apps' increases scope -- it includes everything we have done so far, and more 21:24:44 Bryan: this group is chartered to assess impact of these new application paradigms in mobile? 21:25:05 dom: Web app WG is standardizing technologies to produce widgets and so on 21:25:25 we are chartered to look at currently available technologies and advise on how to use them effectively in mobile 21:25:30 ack d 21:25:30 dom, you wanted to say the mwabp wouldn't be a superset of bp 21:25:37 Bryan: focus is the mobile environment, yes 21:25:38 UbiWeb (UWA) charter: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/uwa-charter.html 21:25:52 q? 21:25:54 goal is just to assess how new functionality impacts mobile 21:26:32 dom: this could entail covering new topics, like more about scripting, more about latency 21:26:45 but bandwidth may not be biggest issue 21:27:15 q+ 21:28:04 jcantera: if we focus on apps in second document, how do you rationalize existing MWBP recommendations like "don't use tables?" some BPs will not apply any more or make sense 21:28:07 ack jcantera 21:28:36 DKA: corresponding bp would be to use tables, where supported, in a certain way, to use scripting where supported in a certain way 21:29:16 we don't want to specify a whole imaginary ADC device, but to say for each BP, if you know something is supported, do it in a certain way 21:29:48 Bryan: maybe we should not 'fix' 1.0, but focus on recommendations for devices beyond DDC in version 2.0 21:29:58 ack k 21:30:02 Kai: if we write something that contradicts 1.0 then we did something wrong 21:30:14 Proposal of goals for BP 2.0 21:30:14 - to prevent, at the onset, the creation of a heterogenous, proprietary content environment 21:30:14 - to enable the end user to request content on his mobile device and not notice what the intended audience was (PC or mobile) 21:30:14 - to enable authors to create new web applications that go beyond today's scope, without breaking standards (extensibility) 21:30:31 1.0 was created to 'fix' what had already been done 21:30:41 don't want to repeat that 21:31:14 looking at this from end user's perspective -- just want the content 21:31:30 allow developers to break out of MWBP 1.0 restrictions 21:31:34 does not exclude web applications 21:31:50 DKA: enable authors to create new mobile web apps beyond today's scope 21:32:18 advanced applications should "degrade" to mobileOK application 21:32:36 how about including the word 'rich' in the doc title? 21:32:41 jcantera: yes 21:33:08 I was thinking how this affects mobileOK -- important 21:33:25 2.0-compliant content may not be mobileOK without adaption 21:33:45 jo: mobileOK is specific about when mobileOK content should be presented 21:34:14 DKA: maybe we can specify that advanced apps must degrade to mobileOK 21:34:47 we should establish this explicit link between the two 21:34:56 make sure nobody thinks we are contradicting BP 1.0 21:36:00 Kai: we are using term "rich mobile web applications"? 21:36:26 Bryan: how about the dynamic v. static dimension? these kinds of apps tend to be dynamic 21:37:04 Kai: just say best practices for mobile content -- there is more to it -- why limit ourselves and focus on this term 21:37:40 +1 to overqualifying "mobile web applications" before starting the work... 21:37:45 DKA: do we need to explain the mobile context? 21:38:22 dom: I suggest we keep it simple 21:38:26 s/overqualifying/NOT overqualifying/ 21:39:00 FYI : http://thinkingandmaking.com/entries/63 21:39:14 I think the question is mostly whether we want to focus on this more dynamic, etc., aspect of the web or not. The rest is editorial work 21:39:34 DKA: don't think we need a separate doc on context-sensitive apps 21:40:01 Kai: are we all talking about the same thing 21:40:40 Kangchan has joined #bpwg 21:41:21 DKA: I think this is one document 21:41:41 Kai: first let us decide whether we need one or two docs? 21:43:04 jo: for example we are not saying what to do with cookies where they *are* supported -- let's find a good way of expressing this 21:43:14 wonders if we may need to complete first a Scope of BP2 document ... 21:43:20 DKA: we can elaborate this later, after taking a resolution 21:43:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will separate the work into "Best Practices for Dynamic Mobile Web Applications " including Determining and Exploiting Mobile Context and picking up on where BP 1.0 leaves off with its "unlesses" and a revision to "Mobile Web Best Practices" (1.1) 21:43:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The Best Practices for Mobile Applications Comes First 21:43:58 Bryan: what is left for MWBP 1.1? 21:44:00 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will create a document that builds upon BP 1.0, answers the points which were left open and moves on to BPs for newer, more interactive content. 21:44:17 jo: I think we'd all basically agree with you the doc could use a revision 21:44:29 we've identified some deficiencies over time 21:45:00 this would be an opportunity to restructure the doc -- but feel it's better to wait a year 21:45:14 (srowen: +1 to jo's 2 resolutions) 21:48:43 Kai: trying to capture interactive content and so on 21:48:59 DKA: I like specifically talking about web apps since it aligns with web app formats WG 21:49:06 it is a way of saying AJAX without saying it 21:49:24 Bryan: it is more than AJAX -- HTTP-based apps that use web methodologies 21:50:02 DKA: OMA definition of AJAX is wider, yes 21:50:31 edm has joined #bpwg 21:50:51 DKA: it's about using browser context, etc. 21:51:50 Bryan: this notion of widgets fits in? 21:52:01 DKA: no, don't think so, but may inform widget developers too 21:53:38 Bryan: we're talking about using existing HTTP methods and semantics, mime types, etc., right? 21:53:39 dom: yes 21:53:48 Bryan: no sockets, etc? 21:53:56 dom: no, strongly doubt it 21:54:42 achuter has joined #bpwg 21:55:05 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will separate work into two distinct documents. One builds on BP 1.0 and answers the points it leaves open, such as "exploiting device capabilities", "what to do if cookies are indeed supported" as well as Dynamic Web Applications (by which we mean things that can be developed using HTTP HTML Javascript CSS DOM) and Determining and Exploiting Mobile Context ... and another document which will be a new revision of BP 1.0 which corrects, clarifies 21:55:11 +1 to proposed resolution 21:55:24 +1 21:55:30 +1 21:55:37 +1 and succumbs to the flood of words 21:55:41 +1 21:55:41 +1 21:55:55 +1 21:55:57 +1 21:56:00 RESOLUTION: We will separate work into two distinct documents. One builds on BP 1.0 and answers the points it leaves open, such as "exploiting device capabilities", "what to do if cookies are indeed supported" as well as Dynamic Web Applications (by which we mean things that can be developed using HTTP HTML Javascript CSS DOM) and Determining and Exploiting Mobile Context ... and another document which will be a new revision of BP 1.0 which corrects, clarifies and restr 21:56:24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will work on the two docs serially, the AJAX one first, oops 21:57:14 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will work on the two docs serially, the Applications one first 21:57:21 +1 21:57:27 RESOLUTION: We will work on the two docs serially, the Applications one first 21:57:49 DKA: who might be an editor? 21:59:08 Potential editors: Bryan, Ed 22:00:25 ACTION: Bryan to report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named - due November 19 22:00:25 Created ACTION-591 - report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2007-11-19]. 22:00:33 ACTION: Ed to report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named - due November 19 22:00:33 Created ACTION-592 - report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named [on Edward Mitukiewicz - due 2007-11-19]. 22:02:44 (srowen: I note that adam connors, not present, is interested in this area and may be able to contribute to the editing) 22:03:23 (great thing to note, srowen, could you nudge him about it?) 22:04:28 DKA: we are a bit behind milestone schedule 22:04:37 move req to Q2 2008 22:04:53 dom: this is the charter, we can't quite modify it 22:05:04 we should put a copy on the home page and update it as needed 22:05:08 Kangchan has joined #bpwg 22:06:45 jo: action someone to update home page with new timelines 22:06:48 I will take it 22:08:01 DKA: XHTML Basic 1.1 is ... 22:08:10 dom: now a candidate recommendation, not a proposed recommendation 22:08:13 we cannot do much until then 22:08:27 jo: how long will the transition take? 22:08:52 dom: BPs are in proposed recommendation since last november due to the dependency on XHTML Basic 1.1 22:09:08 needs to prove some implementations 22:09:17 inputmode is a difficulty -- it is not really in fact implemented 22:09:22 we found one implementation 22:09:33 we try to find at least two implementations of each feature 22:10:03 now contacting vendors about producing implementations 22:10:05 the situation is not simple 22:10:05 alan_chuter has joined #bpwg 22:10:39 abel has joined #bpwg 22:11:14 jo: some mobileOK Basic can't get past PR now either 22:11:28 dom: yes, I think we should not move from CR until BPs move forward too 22:11:36 being stuck in PR is not usual for a year 22:12:47 DKA: mobileOK Scheme 22:13:02 srowen: does this exist? 22:13:09 jo: maybe mine; Kai has been working on it too 22:13:26 DKA: wrapper for mobileOK + labels? do we need it? 22:13:28 jo: yes 22:14:39 DKA: so what is the status -- can we approve it? 22:15:26 what is a reasonable deadline? 22:15:32 jo: I think we need it 22:15:47 q+ 22:15:57 DKA: checker is ready to go 22:16:04 (srowen: more or less, needs work) 22:16:34 ack sr 22:16:35 ack sr 22:18:29 srowen: checker deadlines are... beta in late 2007? we can call it "1.0" -- it is more of a question of how refined we want it to be before calling it "good enough" for initial release. 22:18:31 could be 2007 22:18:50 do we need "scheme"? seems like "labels" will just describe its own relation to everything else 22:19:10 jo: I think it describes more like the circumstances in which it is used, etc. I can maybe edit this by Q2 22:20:26 DKA: will phil be here tomorrow? he is the labels editor 22:20:45 jo: we have a draft from Oct 18 22:21:57 MWBP 2.0 is probably Q1 2008.... seems tight 22:22:06 this is the "applications" doc 22:24:05 DKA: can we strike ADC? 22:24:14 jo: we need to conclude and reset timeframes 22:24:32 q+ 22:24:53 ack sr 22:26:34 srowen: think we need to kill more docs, like mobileOK Pro and Scheme. we signed up for more than we accomplished already, and just invented two more docs, and conclude we are behind. let's be real and kill more 22:26:45 jo: yes but think we need to keep scheme -- maybe kill the trustmark doc? 22:27:25 DKA: MWBP 2.0 is what we just talked about; "future BPs" is our "1.1" doc 22:27:27 ADC we killed 22:27:39 mobileOK Tests second level -- we need to discuss tomorrow 22:27:57 labels/scheme: need to discuss with phil 22:28:34 srowen: still think we will need to forget more of this to make room for MWBP 2.0 22:28:38 DKA: let's stop for today 22:31:41 11 Springfield 22:32:26 rrsagent, make logs member 22:32:35 rrsagent, make logs public 22:32:46 rrsagent, make minutes 22:32:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-minutes.html jo 22:35:54 zakim, bye 22:35:54 Zakim has left #bpwg 22:35:58 soonho has left #bpwg 22:36:01 abel has left #bpwg 22:36:08 rrsagent, bye 22:36:08 I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-actions.rdf : 22:36:08 ACTION: Dan to raise ISSUE on setting criteria for group sign off on mobileOK checker once the task force says it is done with the work [1] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T14-46-58 22:36:08 ACTION: Mike to upload Alan's slides to W3C webspace [2] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T15-07-43 22:36:08 ACTION: Michael to upload Alan's slides to W3C webspace [3] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T15-07-49 22:36:08 ACTION: Michael(tm) to upload Alan's slides to W3C webspace [4] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T15-07-57 22:36:08 ACTION: Jo with Dan to raise this document at next HCG meeting informing them of our intentions and soliciting input [5] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T16-37-19 22:36:08 ACTION: Dan to look for one or more likely candidates to adopt techniques and make arrangements ref copyright and attribution [6] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T17-02-56 22:36:08 ACTION: Michael(TM) to propose text indicating current state of techniques wiki [7] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T17-05-28 22:36:08 ACTION: Bryan to report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named - due November 19 [8] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T22-00-25 22:36:08 ACTION: Ed to report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named - due November 19 [9] 22:36:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-bpwg-irc#T22-00-33