IRC log of bpwg on 2008-01-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:01 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:55:01 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-irc
14:55:03 [trackbot-ng]: RRSAgent, make logs public
14:55:03 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:55:05 [trackbot-ng]: Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:55:05 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:55:06 [trackbot-ng]: Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:55:06 [trackbot-ng]: Date: 31 January 2008
14:55:28 [abel]: abel has joined #bpwg
14:56:23 [adam]: adam has joined #bpwg
14:56:27 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started
14:56:28 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended
14:56:29 [Zakim]: Attendees were
14:57:05 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started
14:57:12 [Zakim]: +Jason
14:57:52 [jo]: zakim, code?
14:57:52 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
14:58:15 [francois]: Regrets: Robert_Finean, srowen, yeliz, Murari, Bryan, Magnus, hgerlach, Kai, drooks, Daniel_Schutzer
14:58:20 [Zakim]: + +20788aaaa
14:58:48 [Zakim]: +??P12
14:58:56 [francois]: zakim, ??P12 is francois
14:58:56 [Zakim]: +francois; got it
14:59:02 [Zakim]: +??P11
14:59:18 [adam]: zakim, +2078aaaa
14:59:18 [Zakim]: I don't understand '+2078aaaa', adam
14:59:23 [abel_]: abel_ has joined #bpwg
14:59:24 [jo]: zakim, ??P11 is me
14:59:24 [Zakim]: +jo; got it
14:59:26 [adam]: zakim, +2078aaaa is me
14:59:26 [Zakim]: sorry, adam, I do not recognize a party named '+2078aaaa'
14:59:32 [francois]: zakim, aaaa is adam
14:59:32 [Zakim]: +adam; got it
15:00:04 [MartinJ]: MartinJ has joined #bpwg
15:00:09 [jo]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0103.html
15:00:20 [Jason]: Jason has joined #bpwg
15:00:31 [achuter]: achuter has joined #bpwg
15:00:52 [Zakim]: +??P19
15:00:53 [Zakim]: +berrueta_
15:01:04 [jo]: regrets+ PhilA
15:01:12 [abel_]: zakim, berrueta_ is me
15:01:13 [Zakim]: +abel_; got it
15:01:22 [abel_]: zakim, nacho is with me
15:01:22 [Zakim]: +nacho; got it
15:01:33 [abel_]: zakim, miguel is with me
15:01:33 [Zakim]: +miguel; got it
15:01:42 [jo]: zakim, ??P19 is DKA
15:01:42 [Zakim]: +DKA; got it
15:01:43 [nacho]: nacho has joined #bpwg
15:01:45 [SeanP]: SeanP has joined #bpwg
15:01:49 [Zakim]: +Dom
15:02:21 [Zakim]: -DKA
15:02:31 [MartinJ]: zakim, code?
15:02:31 [Zakim]: the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MartinJ
15:03:13 [Zakim]: +richard
15:03:16 [Zakim]: +SeanP
15:03:20 [Zakim]: +??P9
15:03:50 [dom]: zakim, ??P9 is Kai
15:03:50 [Zakim]: +Kai; got it
15:04:29 [dom]: ack me
15:04:37 [jo]: zakim, richard is really martinJ
15:04:37 [Zakim]: +martinJ; got it
15:05:25 [jo]: zakim, pick a victim
15:05:25 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose martinJ
15:05:40 [dom]: zakim, pick a victim
15:05:40 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jo
15:05:48 [Zakim]: +DKA
15:05:50 [dom]: zakim, pick a victim
15:05:50 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SeanP
15:06:04 [dom]: ack me
15:06:12 [dom]: ScribeNick: Dom
15:06:15 [dom]: ScribeNick: om
15:06:17 [dom]: ScribeNick: dom
15:06:40 [dom]: Topic: mobileOK Pro TF
15:06:56 [dom]: Kai proposed charter for the mobileoK TF http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html
15:07:07 [dom]: Jo: 3 issues: TF leader, charter, and meeting next week
15:07:18 [dom]: ... Kai, you're volunteering as TF leader, right?
15:07:28 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK TF Leader
15:07:30 [dom]: Kai: yes, thought that's what was already the case
15:07:44 [jo]: RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK TF Leader
15:07:54 [dom]: s/mobileOK TF/mobileOK Pro TF/g
15:08:04 [dom]: ACTION-612?
15:08:04 [trackbot-ng]: ACTION-612 -- Kai Scheppe to write a charter for mobileOK Pro TF by January -- due 2008-01-10 -- OPEN
15:08:04 [trackbot-ng]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/612
15:08:17 [dom]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html
15:08:50 [kemp|plex]: kemp|plex has joined #bpwg
15:09:03 [dom]: Kai: we want to make the tests repeatable
15:09:23 [dom]: ... I proposed a format for that, which people in Boston said was OK
15:09:55 [dom]: Jo: there were several comments:
15:10:04 [dom]: ... the TF should refine its scope - which seems reasonable
15:10:09 [dom]: Kai: and is part of the charter proposal
15:10:33 [dom]: Jo: regarding changes to mobileOK basic, I would be reluctant to this
15:11:01 [dom]: Kai: we don't intend to change mobileOK basic, but while reviewing it to integrate them in pro, we may find problems with them
15:11:20 [dom]: Jo: dom raised a question on how much extension is intended
15:11:31 [dom]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0050.html Dom's position
15:11:41 [dom]: Jo: it would be useful that the scope of work answer these questions
15:11:50 [dom]: Kai: that sounds reasonable, indeed
15:12:03 [dom]: ... and this should help restrict the amount of work we're targeting
15:12:20 [dom]: Jo: that's a concern that many share, I think
15:12:44 [dom]: ... this relates to another comment that was made: we have 9 months left in our charter, which seems pretty limited for such a work
15:13:00 [dom]: ... also, it's not clear whether the TF is also doing in mobileOK scheme and labels
15:13:16 [dom]: Kai: our intent from what I understand is that we'll only focus on mobileOK Pro tests
15:13:37 [dom]: Jo: another point I made is that mobileOK basic is a pre-requirement to mobileOK Pro
15:13:52 [dom]: ... and we don't have that many sites that are mobileOK basic at this time
15:14:18 [dom]: ... so if this concerns only ~200 people in the world, the cost of the WG to review and approve the mobileOK pro work needs to be taken into account
15:14:26 [dom]: ... as SeanO pointed by mail
15:14:44 [dom]: Kai: I agree that we don't know about popularity
15:14:54 [dom]: ... we asked whether this was worthwhile to continue and everybody says yes
15:14:59 [dom]: s/says/said/
15:15:11 [dom]: ... I'm not sure why we're continuing this discussion
15:15:50 [dom]: Jo: what I would be propose is to approve the charter, but asking the TF gets back to the group after the F2F
15:15:57 [dom]: q+ to suggest a short TF charter
15:16:05 [dom]: ack me
15:16:05 [Zakim]: dom, you wanted to suggest a short TF charter
15:16:26 [francois]: dom: first thing, I don't think everybody was OK in Boston going forward in MobileOK
15:16:50 [francois]: ... more problematically, I think the TF should have a chance to show that mobileOK Pro is feasible, useful and needed
15:17:24 [francois]: ... what I would suggest to answer the concerns is that we give the TF a short charter of 1 month or 2
15:17:35 [francois]: ... with the goal to produce a Scope document
15:18:12 [francois]: Kai: sure, but I'm getting a bit frustrated about the reputation of this, I thought I had all the green lights...
15:18:16 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated for WG for confirmation of the charter and continuation of the TF
15:18:41 [francois]: Dom: I don't want you to get frustrated, but it took us a lot of time to do mobileOK Basic
15:18:55 [francois]: ... and afraid it might take a lot of time
15:19:01 [edm]: edm has joined #bpwg
15:19:02 [francois]: Kai: Well, it depends...
15:19:09 [Zakim]: +Ed_Mitukiewicz
15:19:37 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
15:19:45 [francois]: ... the challenge lies in setting brackets in the human tests we're adding to the mobileOK basic
15:20:28 [francois]: Dom: I don't want to go in technical details but the fact that mobileOK took 1 year and a half shows it might be hard.
15:20:59 [francois]: ... If you can show us it can be done, my point remains mobileOK Pro was decided 18 months ago and there's no draft yet
15:21:50 [dom]: Regrets+ AlanT
15:22:05 [dom]: DKA: I think we're covering grounds that will be discussed next week
15:22:19 [Zakim]: -DKA
15:22:21 [dom]: ... let's see what the TF gets to propose on this
15:22:24 [jo]: ack ed
15:22:38 [dom]: Jo: that's why I'm proposing to approve the charter, and ask the TF to get back to us
15:22:44 [dom]: DKA: +1 to that resolution
15:23:00 [Zakim]: -Ed_Mitukiewicz
15:23:27 [dom]: ACTION: Jo to summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF
15:23:27 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-635 - Summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-02-07].
15:23:28 [Zakim]: +Ed_Mitukiewicz
15:23:31 [francois]: i/dom: first thing, I would suggest/ScribeNick: francois
15:23:32 [francois]: i/Regrets+ AlanT/ScribeNick: dom
15:23:56 [francois]: q?
15:24:13 [Zakim]: -Kai
15:25:05 [jo]: (15:19:35) Jo: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
15:25:12 [dom]: +1 to the resolution
15:25:19 [francois]: +1
15:25:30 [jo]: RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
15:25:55 [dom]: Topic: Good Standing status
15:26:20 [dom]: Francois: we have switched a few participants of the group to "not in good standing" as decided
15:26:25 [dom]: ... let me know if you find any mistake
15:26:36 [dom]: ... it has already helped us clean the list of participants
15:26:39 [Zakim]: + +1.859.261.aabb
15:26:41 [dom]: ... it seems to be working well
15:26:42 [francois]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/GoodStandingTracker.html Good Standing Tracker
15:26:53 [dom]: s/http:/-> http:/
15:27:23 [dom]: Topic: Korea F2F
15:27:42 [dom]: Jo: BPWG meeting is on Mon and Tue, UWA on Tue and Thu, and DD on Thu and Fri
15:28:08 [dom]: ... on Wed, there will be a workshop-like day with the korean mobile web forum
15:28:09 [francois]: -> http://www.w3c.or.kr/venue-200803/ Logistics for Seoul
15:28:25 [jo]: zakim, aabb is Raymond
15:28:25 [Zakim]: +Raymond; got it
15:28:36 [dom]: Topic: Zaragoza Update
15:29:08 [dom]: Nacho: the person in charge of the organization wasn't available this week - I should have more news on this by Monday
15:29:10 [Zakim]: +??P9
15:29:15 [dom]: ... and will forward that to the group list
15:29:27 [dom]: Topic: BPWG blog
15:29:46 [dom]: Francois: we're planning to upgrade the BPWG blog template
15:29:59 [dom]: ... it currently is pretty ugly and not mobileOK
15:30:05 [dom]: ... I'm working on revamping it
15:30:30 [dom]: Topic: mobileOK
15:30:33 [dom]: ack me
15:30:56 [Zakim]: -SeanP
15:31:23 [francois]: dom: Sure, we had a call with Marie-Claire, trying to see how to move forward with the deplyment of mobileOK basic and make sure it's a success story
15:31:39 [francois]: ... I guess main decision was to make a better plan which I agreed to address
15:34:09 [Zakim]: -Raymond
15:35:21 [dom]: Topic: Objects in mobileOK
15:35:32 [dom]: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/
15:35:38 [dom]: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results.php
15:35:58 [francois]: Dom: I wrote a set of 4 test cases, the goal being to record how the browsers of the wild world interact with objects
15:36:06 [francois]: ... we have 13 records
15:36:35 [matt]: matt has joined #bpwg
15:36:39 [jo]: q?
15:36:53 [francois]: ... when the type attribute is set and set to something that the browser doesn't recognize, it won't try to download the resource
15:37:06 [francois]: ... with the noticeable exception of Opera and a few others
15:37:33 [francois]: ... I made sure the tests reported what I wanted ;)
15:37:46 [francois]: ... My taste is that we enough tests
15:38:03 [francois]: ... I have no idea what a good sample would be, so I would say we have one!
15:38:29 [francois]: ... We have enough proof that there's enough browsers that are not dumb about these objects.
15:38:43 [dom]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0096.html Call for tests
15:38:53 [francois]: Jo: do the test, people, please!
15:38:57 [dom]: ScribeNick: dom
15:39:09 [dom]: Topic: Content Transformation Task Force
15:39:14 [dom]: Francois: we're making progress
15:39:28 [dom]: ... I've just had a long discussion with Yves Lafon, our HTTP expert
15:39:38 [dom]: ... will send a report of that discussion by email
15:39:55 [dom]: i/Dom: I wrote/ScribeNick: Francois/
15:40:00 [dom]: Topic: Checker Task force
15:40:11 [dom]: Jo: beta release is imminent
15:40:18 [dom]: ... I think the group needs to approve this
15:40:35 [francois]: i/Francois: we're making progress/ScribeNick: dom/
15:40:48 [francois]: ScribeNick: francois
15:40:52 [francois]: ScribeNick: dom
15:41:00 [dom]: ... I wonder what criteria we want to set, esp. whether we need to decide now what the exit criteria for beta is
15:41:03 [francois]: ScribeNick: francois
15:41:28 [francois]: dom: the beta is imminent. We have managed to do many good progress. It's much more complete than the alpha.
15:41:37 [francois]: ... In terms of entry and exit criteria:
15:41:56 [francois]: ... * entry: all of a mobileOK is covered, but it has not all be tested
15:42:26 [francois]: ... * exit from the beta: needs to be decided by the group, but could be decided when the beta is out
15:42:46 [francois]: ... This also relates to the on-going work on the mobileOK test suite
15:42:53 [francois]: ... It should not delay the beta
15:42:56 [nacho]: btw, CTIC is going to drop the first version of the Dev Manual this weekend to the TF mailing list
15:43:28 [dom]: Jo: nacho, what's your point of view on going to beta?
15:43:37 [dom]: ... do you think we need to be sure that all tests are covered?
15:43:50 [francois]: i/Jo: nacho, what's/ScribeNick: dom/
15:43:51 [dom]: Nacho: I think we should it to the public together with the developer manual
15:44:05 [dom]: ... maybe we need another chapter on the testing part
15:44:22 [dom]: Jo: any other view about going to beta?
15:44:41 [dom]: ... if nobody objects to it,
15:45:12 [nacho]: s/we should it to the public/we should release it to the public/
15:45:25 [dom]: ... and if nobody thinks that we should have a formal testing before going to beta
15:45:38 [jo]: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks it is ready
15:45:43 [nacho]: +1
15:45:43 [dom]: ... I propose we mandate the TF to make the decision to move to beta itself
15:45:46 [adam]: +1
15:45:46 [abel_]: q+
15:45:48 [dom]: +1
15:45:52 [abel_]: q-
15:45:52 [francois]: +1
15:45:53 [jo]: RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks it is ready
15:45:54 [achuter]: +1
15:45:56 [abel_]: 1+
15:46:26 [dom]: Topic: mobile accessibility
15:46:43 [dom]: Jo: we have time for more points than the ones you specifically raised
15:47:03 [dom]: AlanC: I sent a list of specific points in my mail
15:47:08 [dom]: ... has anyone looked at those?
15:47:10 [dom]: Jo: I have
15:47:25 [dom]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0102.html
15:47:37 [achuter]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080129/mwbp-wcag20.html#ACCESS_KEYS
15:49:02 [dom]: Alan: for each BP, I try to explain how a given BP can help making a page more accessible
15:49:12 [dom]: ... although I'm not sure this group can have much input on that aspect
15:49:36 [dom]: Jo: generally, it's more on the mapping from WCAG 2 to BP that this group can comment on
15:49:51 [dom]: ... but it would be good to review the document in a step by step way
15:50:16 [dom]: ... clearly we won't have many technical comments on that part, but we still have to review it
15:50:52 [dom]: ... I don't have much comments on this, except some editorial ones that I'll send offline
15:52:54 [dom]: Alan: [presenting autorefresh]
15:53:31 [dom]: Jo: a note that in BP, we only ask to be able to stop it
15:53:59 [dom]: ... the 2 guidelines don't completely overlap, so you basically need to do both to conform to WCAG and BP
15:54:44 [dom]: Alan: I propose that we get a look at the document going the other way
15:54:55 [dom]: Jo: maybe we should actually go through all the BPs now
15:55:07 [dom]: Alan: good idea
15:55:36 [dom]: ... AVOID_FREE_TEXT can be useful for accessibility, but doesn't help directly for WCAG conformance
15:56:37 [dom]: Jo: maybe the similar BPs should be grouped (e.g. AVOID_FREE_TEXT and MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKE), or have a "related" section under the relevant BP
15:57:20 [dom]: Alan: I don't think the group will be able to comment on the WCAG2 conformance...
15:57:32 [dom]: Jo: moving on BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY
15:57:45 [dom]: Alan: not covered in WCAG, but it ought to be
15:58:02 [dom]: @@@: I think the WCAG document is more stringent on this than BP, isn't it?
15:58:35 [dom]: Alan: WCAG is much more detailed and sophisticated given how much expertise and time they've spent on it
15:58:41 [dom]: ... but it's not always more stringent
15:58:48 [dom]: s/@@@/Adam/
15:59:43 [dom]: Adam: it would be useful to say how much increment you would need to add to get WCAG conformant (?)
16:00:21 [dom]: Jo: it sounds reading the document that applying the BPs don't you help so much
16:00:38 [dom]: ... we may want to be careful of the impression it gives, which may be counterproductive
16:01:05 [dom]: Alan: the first BPs don't have much relevance, but the ones further down do
16:01:16 [dom]: Jo: maybe we need to revisit the order in which we present them :)
16:01:42 [dom]: Alan: BALANCE is another example of something that help, but isn't included in WCAG because too vague
16:01:53 [dom]: ... same for CENTRAL_MEANING
16:02:48 [dom]: ... CLARITY (which was in WCAG 1.0) was replaced by a reading-level guideline for the same reason
16:03:15 [dom]: Jo: it would be useful to explain what "innate reading level " means beforehand
16:03:37 [nacho]: nacho has left #bpwg
16:03:48 [dom]: Alan: it relates to "age", roughly speaking
16:04:14 [dom]: Jo: I think you might want to link to an explanation from the phrase in the 1st paragraph
16:04:55 [dom]: Alan: COLOR_CONTRAST is rather similar to the WCAG 1.0 CP, but with a different reasoning for it
16:05:22 [dom]: ... to meet WCAG 2.0, you need to be a bit more careful than what the BP says
16:06:07 [dom]: Jo: you use both "color vision deficiency" and "color vision deficit": are they meant to mean the same thing? If so, might be worth using a single phrase
16:06:23 [dom]: Alan: I'm not sure, that's a good point; I'll check it up
16:06:51 [dom]: Jo: same for other phrases of this type (e.g. "low vision", ...)
16:07:20 [dom]: ... for people that are not expert in the field, it really helps to use the same terminology as much as possible
16:08:21 [dom]: Alan: another point: WCAG 2.0 has an algorithm for detecting proper contrast, which may not be appropriate for BP
16:08:42 [dom]: Jo: we had that originally, but dropped it for some reasons
16:09:10 [dom]: Alan: the algorithm might be worth including in BP 2.0
16:09:20 [dom]: Jo: it could actually be a useful input to the mobileOK Pro TF
16:09:56 [dom]: ... it is more generally speaking that mobileOK Pro will change the picture of this document quite dramatically
16:10:08 [dom]: Alan: indeed
16:10:32 [dom]: Jo: so let's use this as input to the Pro meeting next week - as you're going there
16:11:17 [dom]: ... it could be an interesting perspective for mobileOK Pro to see how much we could change some of the "possibly" to "yes", and some "not at all" to "possibly"
16:11:52 [dom]: Alan: going the other way, we could look at what was dropped from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 and sees if this is a sign for something likely difficult to test?
16:11:58 [dom]: s/Alan/Adam/
16:12:04 [dom]: Jo: that's very likely, indeed
16:12:45 [dom]: Alan: CONTROL_LABELLING was in WCAG 1.0, but was moved as a part of 4.1.2 in WCAG 2.0
16:13:00 [dom]: ... so it isn't sufficient
16:13:39 [kemp|plex]: kemp|plex has left #bpwg
16:13:51 [dom]: ... idem for CONTROL_POSITION
16:15:08 [dom]: Jo: ERROR_MESSAGES helps accessibility-wise, but doesn't given you WCAG points
16:15:15 [dom]: s/given/give/
16:16:21 [dom]: Alan: IMAGE_MAPS is no added_benefit
16:16:43 [dom]: Jo: when we move BP from PR to REC, can we take into account some of the comments from Alan?
16:16:44 [dom]: q+
16:16:47 [dom]: ack me
16:17:35 [francois]: dom: I think it's editorial, so it shouldn't blow out anything, but need to check before I can say something
16:18:32 [francois]: Alan: the relation is not wrong, but not very helpful
16:20:04 [dom]: Jo: when you say "When image maps are not delivered", you mean when they are not present in the document, right?
16:20:14 [dom]: Alan: right
16:21:07 [dom]: Jo: moving on LINK_TARGET_ID, this one actually helps compliant!
16:21:16 [dom]: ... we need to move it up at the top of the list :)
16:22:34 [dom]: ... What do you think about rearranging the order to first the ones that say "yes", then the "partial", and then the ones that help but don't give you WCAG
16:22:49 [dom]: Alan: currently they are in alphabetical order
16:23:50 [dom]: ... but the intro text make a per BP list depending on the level targeted
16:24:29 [dom]: Jo: let's stop here, and start again from MEASURES on the next call
16:25:23 [dom]: Topic: BP2
16:25:29 [dom]: Jo: Bryan isn't on the call
16:25:40 [dom]: ... we still haven't received much input on what can be put in the document
16:26:00 [dom]: ... we have an open issue on this
16:26:16 [dom]: ... please put some thoughts on this
16:26:32 [dom]: ISSUE-229?
16:26:32 [trackbot-ng]: ISSUE-229 -- Scope of mobile web applications best practices -- OPEN
16:26:32 [trackbot-ng]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229
16:27:18 [dom]: Jo: it is essential that we have a list of references as starting point
16:27:35 [dom]: ... only suggestion so far comes from the Center for the Handheld Web
16:28:18 [dom]: Topic: Cannes F2F
16:28:34 [dom]: Francois: we'll be welcome there, but it is a bit early to request a slot there
16:28:59 [dom]: Jo: we'll have the usual discussions about overlap between groups, but we can do among chairs and team
16:29:10 [dom]: s/discussions/haggling/
16:29:28 [dom]: ACTION-630?
16:29:28 [trackbot-ng]: ACTION-630 -- François Daoust to check with organizers of the TPAC in France in October 2008 -- due 2008-01-31 -- OPEN
16:29:28 [trackbot-ng]: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/630
16:29:43 [dom]: ack me
16:30:13 [dom]: close ACTION-630
16:30:13 [trackbot-ng]: ACTION-630 Check with organizers of the TPAC in France in October 2008 closed
16:30:50 [Jason]: Jason has left #bpwg
16:30:50 [Zakim]: -Jason
16:30:50 [edm]: bye
16:30:51 [Zakim]: -Dom
16:30:51 [Zakim]: -jo
16:30:52 [abel_]: bye
16:30:52 [Zakim]: -martinJ
16:30:53 [Zakim]: -adam
16:30:54 [MartinJ]: MartinJ has left #bpwg
16:30:54 [Zakim]: -francois
16:30:55 [Zakim]: -Ed_Mitukiewicz
16:30:56 [Zakim]: -achuter
16:30:59 [dom]: Jo: thanks Alan for leading us through the document
16:30:59 [Zakim]: -abel_
16:31:00 [Zakim]: MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended
16:31:02 [Zakim]: Attendees were Jason, +20788aaaa, francois, jo, adam, abel_, nacho, miguel, DKA, Dom, SeanP, Kai, martinJ, Ed_Mitukiewicz, +1.859.261.aabb, Raymond, achuter
16:31:07 [dom]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:31:07 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html dom
16:31:08 [abel_]: abel_ has left #bpwg
16:31:10 [dom]: Zakim, bye
16:31:10 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #bpwg
16:31:11 [jo]: thanks Dom for scribing!
16:31:37 [jo]: d/haggling/discussion/
16:33:00 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:33:00 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:33:27 [francois]: Chair: Jo
16:33:53 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:33:53 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:36:50 [francois]: i/dom: first thing, I don't think everybody/ScribeNick: francois
16:36:53 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:36:53 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:37:47 [francois]: Regrets+ Shahriar
16:37:49 [francois]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:37:49 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois
16:43:08 [francois]: RRSAgent, bye
16:43:08 [RRSAgent]: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-actions.rdf :
16:43:08 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Jo to summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF [1]
16:43:08 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-irc#T15-23-27
16:43:13 [francois]: zakim, bye