IRC log of bpwg on 2008-03-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:47:39 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
14:47:39 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-irc
14:47:41 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:47:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #bpwg
14:47:43 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be BPWG
14:47:43 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
14:47:44 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
14:47:44 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 13 March 2008
14:48:25 [dom]
Regrets: AlanT, Shah, Heiko, kemp, Magnus, Nacho, Jeff, Tony, Jason, Robert, Adam, Francois, Chaals
14:48:39 [dom]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0032.html
14:48:45 [dom]
Chair: Jo
14:48:58 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:48:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html dom
14:52:36 [yeliz]
yeliz has joined #bpwg
14:54:37 [abel]
abel has joined #bpwg
14:55:48 [dom]
Regrets+ Murari
14:56:34 [srowen]
srowen has joined #bpwg
14:58:38 [miguel]
miguel has joined #bpwg
14:59:05 [MartinJ]
MartinJ has joined #bpwg
14:59:13 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:19 [Zakim]
+ +0777613aaaa
14:59:57 [MartinJ]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:57 [Zakim]
+MartinJ; got it
15:00:12 [Zakim]
+dom
15:00:15 [jo]
zakim, code?
15:00:15 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo
15:00:53 [Zakim]
+jo
15:00:55 [miguel]
Zakim, dom is me
15:00:55 [Zakim]
+miguel; got it
15:01:04 [Zakim]
+Dom
15:01:16 [Zakim]
+Sean_Owen
15:01:25 [dom]
zakim, list attendees?
15:01:25 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, dom.
15:01:27 [dom]
zakim, list attendees
15:01:27 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +0777613aaaa, MartinJ, jo, miguel, Dom, Sean_Owen
15:01:28 [PhilA]
PhilA has joined #bpwg
15:01:43 [miguel]
Zakim, abel is with me
15:01:43 [Zakim]
+abel; got it
15:01:52 [drooks]
drooks has joined #bpwg
15:02:13 [Zakim]
+Kai
15:02:23 [Zakim]
+Phil_Archer
15:02:26 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
15:02:41 [edm]
edm has joined #bpwg
15:02:50 [Zakim]
+Ed_Mitukiewicz
15:03:19 [Zakim]
+??P15
15:03:41 [dom]
zakim, ??P15 is yelzi
15:03:41 [Zakim]
+yelzi; got it
15:03:41 [Kai]
Kai has joined #bpwg
15:03:41 [PhilA]
zakim, mute me
15:03:42 [Zakim]
Phil_Archer should now be muted
15:03:43 [Zakim]
+drooks
15:03:50 [yeliz]
zakim, mute me
15:03:50 [Zakim]
sorry, yeliz, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:03:52 [dom]
zakim, yelzi is really yeliz
15:03:52 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
15:04:01 [dom]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:04:01 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:04:03 [yeliz]
zakim, mute me
15:04:03 [Zakim]
yeliz was already muted, yeliz
15:04:12 [Zakim]
+SeanP
15:04:16 [yeliz]
:)
15:04:33 [dom]
zakim, list attendees
15:04:33 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +0777613aaaa, MartinJ, jo, miguel, Dom, Sean_Owen, abel, Kai, Phil_Archer, Ed_Mitukiewicz, drooks, yeliz, SeanP
15:05:11 [Bryan]
Bryan has joined #bpwg
15:05:12 [jo]
regrets+ DKA
15:05:16 [Zakim]
+Bryan_Sullivan
15:05:31 [dom]
ScribeNick: srowen
15:06:11 [srowen]
jo: first is feedback from Seoul
15:06:12 [dom]
Topic: Seoul F2F Briefing
15:06:22 [jo]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0027.html Seoul Briefing
15:06:41 [srowen]
jo: francois assembled a summary, above, and we got a lot of work done
15:06:46 [srowen]
mostly focused on transformation guidelines
15:07:01 [srowen]
put out a new draft just before the call -- still many editor's notes
15:07:05 [srowen]
made substantial progress of BP2
15:07:23 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313 Updated editors draft of CT guidelines
15:07:51 [srowen]
jo: anyone have specific questions about seoul briefing?
15:08:12 [srowen]
we also had a successful Wednesday workshop with Korean community, very productive
15:08:25 [srowen]
have not communicated message about mobileOK and DDC
15:08:30 [srowen]
it seems to have been misunderstood
15:08:44 [srowen]
the place to do it may be mobileOK Scheme, which chaals has volunteered to drive
15:08:55 [dom]
Topic: June / October F2F Updates
15:09:18 [srowen]
jo: zaragoza venue is off, due to difficulties coordinating a venue
15:09:29 [srowen]
will move to a different location, but keep the date
15:09:43 [srowen]
Dom's offered to host at Sophia-Antipolis at W3C offices
15:09:44 [Zakim]
-Phil_Archer
15:09:51 [srowen]
dom: won't have definite answer before tomorrow
15:10:17 [srowen]
if anyone else has a proposed location, please do
15:10:37 [srowen]
needs to be in Europe this time
15:10:49 [Kai]
q+
15:10:55 [srowen]
jo: anyone on call have comments, offers related to the June F2F?
15:11:04 [jo]
ack k
15:11:08 [srowen]
Kai: as a backup, we could do it in Darmstadt, could probably arrange a few rooms
15:11:19 [srowen]
no visits to the european space agency this time :)
15:11:33 [srowen]
(srowen: Eurodisney?)
15:11:47 [srowen]
jo: thanks Kai
15:12:00 [srowen]
(srowen: Paris isn't far!)
15:12:19 [srowen]
dom: need to make up our mind on date of meeting
15:12:26 [srowen]
early in the week or late in the week, joint meeting with other groups?
15:12:56 [srowen]
jo: no strong preferences; DDWG will be out of charter by then
15:13:17 [dom]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0002.html
15:13:36 [srowen]
jo: will return to OMA advertising guidelines later
15:13:43 [dom]
Topic: BP2
15:13:58 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080305 Latest BP2 editors draft
15:14:11 [srowen]
Bryan: latest version is ...
15:14:27 [srowen]
... the March 5 revision, yes
15:14:37 [srowen]
captures revisions from Seoul, and other items I picked up on in the meeting
15:14:42 [srowen]
general editorial cleanup, etc.
15:15:12 [srowen]
need to review changes to external references
15:15:22 [srowen]
expect to have a new draft before the next call
15:15:26 [srowen]
jo: anything to notice here?
15:16:02 [matt]
matt has joined #bpwg
15:16:06 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080213&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080305 Diff Since Feb 13 version
15:16:16 [srowen]
Bryan: easier to use now. Added text about convergence, multiple views, multiple devices
15:16:46 [srowen]
can anyone define the top-left navigation problem for me?
15:17:40 [srowen]
difference between transport and application compression techniques... something I picked up on...
15:17:46 [srowen]
there are implications to best practice techniques
15:18:28 [srowen]
jo: Kai, the top-left nav problem was your issue from BP1?
15:19:05 [srowen]
Kai: yes, the issue is just that you don't want to be confronted with navigation immediately, but rather content you want
15:19:23 [srowen]
how to get around this? not sure there is an answer. It is a paradigm
15:19:37 [srowen]
jo: why is this different from BP1?
15:19:52 [srowen]
Kai: covered in the sense that we said, put in a nav bar, but not sure that was a sophisticated solution
15:20:05 [srowen]
jo: does that answer your issue Bryan?
15:20:17 [srowen]
first screen needs to be more than just navigation?
15:20:57 [srowen]
Bryan: sites should present a balance of navigation and content -- I get the general idea
15:21:07 [srowen]
is this a problem where we can recommend "how to do it"
15:21:19 [srowen]
we should avoid naming problems without prescribing solutions
15:21:23 [srowen]
(srowen: +1 to that)
15:21:39 [srowen]
Bryan: I can draft "stay away from" suggestions, if that's a good start
15:22:02 [srowen]
Kai: don't we risk running up against a paradigm that is hard to 'break'?
15:22:05 [srowen]
simply hard to get around
15:22:27 [srowen]
until we have content adaptation, not much we can do
15:22:50 [srowen]
jo: first step is for bryan to be able to write a clearer placeholder, then we action someone to write a more complete BP
15:22:58 [srowen]
Bryan: I have enough understanding to write a placeholder
15:23:23 [srowen]
jo: I note contributions from yeliz et al. on AJAX...
15:23:33 [srowen]
(srowen: years of practice)
15:23:33 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:23:33 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:23:54 [srowen]
yeliz: ... and contributions on ARIA (sp?)
15:24:22 [srowen]
yeliz: this came up in education/outreach meeting, because now WCAG recommends it
15:24:29 [srowen]
maybe useful to BP2, just soliciting opinions
15:24:47 [srowen]
jo: can we action someone to look through and recommend what is relevant?
15:24:56 [srowen]
yeliz: I can do it
15:25:16 [dom]
ACTION: yeliz to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to BP2
15:25:16 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-712 - Review ARIA to see what could be relevant to BP2 [on Yeliz Yesilada - due 2008-03-20].
15:25:34 [srowen]
jo: jonathan's contribution is fairly big
15:25:52 [srowen]
who's an AJAX expert that can review?
15:26:03 [srowen]
(srowen: I am inclined to volunteer Adam)
15:26:13 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:26:13 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:26:16 [srowen]
Bryan: haven't had a chance to review this, but have reviewed AJAX resources in general
15:27:07 [dom]
ACTION: Owen to review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do so
15:27:07 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-713 - Review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do so [on Sean Owen - due 2008-03-20].
15:27:08 [srowen]
srowen: I'll take an action to ask Adam about the AJAX doc, or else review myself
15:27:23 [srowen]
Bryan: would like people to look at current draft, particularly highlighted sections
15:28:09 [srowen]
jo: anything else on BP2?
15:28:17 [dom]
Topic: MMA Advertizing guidelines
15:28:17 [srowen]
jo: next, OMA mobile ad guidelines
15:28:37 [jo]
s/OMA/MMA
15:28:44 [srowen]
(srowen: oops)
15:28:58 [srowen]
dom: MMA has contacted us for feedback on guidelines
15:29:21 [srowen]
Sean and Jo noted some issues/questions
15:29:48 [srowen]
jo: anyone else have feedback?
15:29:58 [Bryan]
q+
15:30:09 [srowen]
jo: sean you were amenable?
15:30:16 [srowen]
srowen: yes no major conflicts, or even modest ones
15:30:17 [dom]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0018.html Sean's comments on MMA guidelines
15:30:17 [jo]
ack bryan
15:30:22 [srowen]
jo: just the PNG issue, right
15:30:26 [Kai]
I glanced at it and didn't see anything bad, but couldn't go much in depth on it.
15:30:31 [dom]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0019.html Jo's comments on MMA guidelines
15:30:49 [srowen]
Bryan: looks valuable. the reference to WAP1/2, while historical, is still somewhat necessary
15:30:59 [srowen]
maybe we can find a different way to refer to XHTML-on-a-small-screen
15:31:05 [srowen]
but in principle people know what WAP means
15:31:13 [srowen]
wouldn't propose to remove it
15:31:28 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
15:31:41 [srowen]
jo: maybe note that WAP2 is "a" term for the web, not a primary term
15:31:58 [srowen]
in the european draft, there were references to BPs and mobileOK
15:32:08 [srowen]
they don't appear in the good practices section
15:32:11 [srowen]
we could ask them to be restored
15:32:26 [Zakim]
+??P0
15:32:31 [achuter]
zakim, mute me
15:32:31 [Zakim]
sorry, achuter, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:32:42 [achuter]
zakim, ??P0 is me
15:32:42 [Zakim]
+achuter; got it
15:32:42 [srowen]
the reference is still at the end of the doc, but missing from the middle of the document
15:32:47 [achuter]
zakim, mute me
15:32:47 [Zakim]
achuter should now be muted
15:33:04 [srowen]
jo: dom how much more do we need to do on this?
15:33:13 [srowen]
dom: happy to "push the button"
15:33:20 [srowen]
would like someone to draft the response
15:33:32 [srowen]
jo: I will draft it
15:34:05 [dom]
ACTION: Jo to draft review of MMA Advertising
15:34:05 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-714 - Draft review of MMA Advertising [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-20].
15:34:42 [srowen]
srowen: I suggested a few new practices for the MMA doc:
15:34:43 [srowen]
The clickthrough should result in at most one redirect before the user
15:34:43 [srowen]
reaches the landing page.
15:34:43 [srowen]
"Crush" PNG and GIF images to reduce size as much as possible.
15:34:43 [srowen]
Make the ads *non* cacheable on the assumption that they are generally
15:34:43 [srowen]
viewed once and rotated, so it would waste cache space.
15:34:49 [srowen]
anyone interested in it?
15:34:57 [srowen]
dom: they may or may not be interested, but sure, can send those over
15:35:35 [srowen]
jo: will weave this in along with a suggestion to reference mobileOK, BP
15:35:41 [srowen]
we should welcome *global* guidelines from the MMA
15:36:01 [srowen]
jo: time for reports from task forces
15:36:10 [dom]
Topic: Content transformation Task force report
15:36:19 [srowen]
jo: Content Transformation TF made lots of progress at the F2F
15:36:25 [dom]
dom has left #bpwg
15:36:29 [dom]
dom has joined #bpwg
15:36:49 [srowen]
many sections are awaiting contribution
15:36:54 [srowen]
otherwise document continues to evolve
15:36:57 [srowen]
any questions?
15:36:59 [dom]
Topic: mobileOK basic checker Task Force
15:38:01 [srowen]
srowen: a steady stream of enhancements and fixes
15:38:45 [dom]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Mar/0015.html Dom's analysis on HTML validity
15:39:16 [srowen]
now is the time to review the code, output
15:39:21 [srowen]
jo: how about that DTD issue?
15:40:03 [Zakim]
+Phil_Archer
15:40:08 [PhilA]
zakim, mute me
15:40:08 [Zakim]
Phil_Archer should now be muted
15:40:10 [srowen]
yes, unable to validate some docs according to stated doctype, per mobielOK, like HTML 4
15:40:23 [srowen]
jo: this entails a change to mobileOK if we can't implement it
15:40:34 [srowen]
srowen: could treat it as a known issue
15:41:04 [srowen]
dom: HTML 4 docs will be invalid as HTML 4, or XHTML MP, so it doesn't really change the scope of mobileOK to add/remove test
15:41:13 [srowen]
jo: we do have other doc changes anyway
15:41:40 [srowen]
dom: as an aside, have these changes been integrated into a new draft?
15:41:42 [srowen]
srowen: no
15:41:48 [srowen]
jo: let's raise as an issue to bookmark it
15:41:51 [srowen]
dom: will raise the issue
15:42:02 [DKA]
DKA has joined #bpwg
15:42:45 [Kai]
q+
15:43:06 [srowen]
srowen: note, we'll always encounter docs that can't be validated -- unknown DTD
15:43:15 [srowen]
so to what extent do we need an exception for HTML 4?
15:43:22 [srowen]
jo: let's discuss in an ISSUE
15:43:24 [jo]
ack k
15:43:37 [srowen]
Kai: we're not dealing with HTML 4 docs in the first place...?
15:44:11 [srowen]
jo: let's discuss in an ISSUE
15:44:39 [srowen]
may wish to liaise with Korea, to communicate that now is the time to review the mobileOK implementation
15:45:05 [srowen]
jo: time for mobileOK Pro TF
15:45:09 [srowen]
Kai: in waiting mode
15:45:32 [dom]
i/jo: time for/Topic: mobileOK Pro Task Force/
15:45:37 [jo]
ACTION: jo to point out to Korean members the time frames remaining on checker
15:45:38 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-715 - Point out to Korean members the time frames remaining on checker [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-20].
15:45:38 [srowen]
will need to discuss subjective nature of tests, as we have before
15:45:57 [srowen]
may need to change tests to be more objective, testable
15:46:03 [srowen]
but won't be able to get around this entirely
15:46:10 [srowen]
can't expect a "checker"
15:46:22 [srowen]
because this is specifically the tests that can't be machine "checked"
15:46:39 [dom]
i/srowen: note,/<dom> ISSUE-240 created/
15:46:44 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:46:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html dom
15:46:51 [srowen]
jo: lots of "trains in the station" right now but yes we need to get on with this
15:47:07 [srowen]
my concern is that accessibility folks have been through this, with changes between WCAG1 and WCAG2
15:47:29 [srowen]
should this be turned over to WCAG to comment on problems of subjectivity?
15:47:43 [srowen]
achuter: WCAG is probably too busy right now
15:48:22 [srowen]
jo: alan, are you happy with the level of subjectivity?
15:48:35 [srowen]
achuter: no, people will take advantage of subjectivity
15:48:42 [srowen]
q+
15:48:58 [jo]
ack s
15:49:28 [Kai]
q+
15:49:50 [srowen]
srowen: WCAG / accessibility is required by law in some cases, not mobileOK Pro
15:50:03 [srowen]
so incentive to engage the standard, but low-ball it, is not as big an issue
15:50:16 [srowen]
jo: true, but may become a contractual requirement in some cases, and that's desirable
15:50:17 [jo]
ack k
15:50:36 [dom]
q+ to say that if mobileOK Pro is going to be useful, it needs to be credible and consistent
15:50:39 [PhilA]
q+
15:50:42 [srowen]
Kai: we're interested in making testers come up with the same answer as much as possible
15:50:55 [srowen]
yes, no legal requirement, so this may not be as vital an issue for mobileOK Pro
15:51:36 [srowen]
is it not enough to just say that if a reputable tester certifies mobileOK Pro compliance, isn't that enough?
15:51:42 [jo]
ack d
15:51:42 [Zakim]
dom, you wanted to say that if mobileOK Pro is going to be useful, it needs to be credible and consistent
15:52:25 [srowen]
dom: two independent testers with mobileOK Pro doc and a website need to come up with the same answer, otherwise mobileOK Pro means little
15:52:44 [srowen]
W3C board warned about subjectivity problem from the outset
15:52:51 [srowen]
we need to have a good story on this point
15:53:13 [PhilA]
ack me
15:53:21 [Zakim]
+??P11
15:53:26 [DKA]
zakim, p11 is me
15:53:26 [Zakim]
sorry, DKA, I do not recognize a party named 'p11'
15:53:32 [DKA]
zakim, ??p11 is me
15:53:32 [Zakim]
+DKA; got it
15:53:36 [srowen]
PhilA: this is where POWDER helps
15:53:37 [jo]
s/W3C board/W3C Advisory Board/
15:53:40 [dom]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2006Aug/0182.html Advisory Board comments on subjectivity
15:54:02 [Zakim]
-MartinJ
15:54:02 [srowen]
what this overlooks is that an individual (content provider, etc.) claims conformance
15:54:15 [Zakim]
-SeanP
15:54:18 [Zakim]
+MartinJ
15:54:21 [srowen]
the question reduces to whether you trust the tester's judgment
15:54:36 [jo]
q+
15:54:49 [dom]
q+ to say that mobileOK Pro will then heavily reduce the value of the mobileOK brand
15:54:58 [srowen]
I think it's OK that two people may come up with different answers
15:55:06 [srowen]
POWDER helps you sort out which answer you believe
15:55:28 [dom]
q?
15:55:31 [dom]
ack jo
15:55:52 [jo]
ack do
15:55:52 [Zakim]
dom, you wanted to say that mobileOK Pro will then heavily reduce the value of the mobileOK brand
15:56:00 [srowen]
jo: I follow the logic, but your average Joe doesn't know the difference between reputable and bad testers, does this not punt the problem?
15:56:16 [Zakim]
-MartinJ
15:56:31 [srowen]
dom: contracts might specify "tester X says you are mobileOK Pro"
15:56:43 [srowen]
this might restrict the usability of mobileOK Pro
15:56:45 [Zakim]
-Bryan_Sullivan
15:56:52 [srowen]
and reduces value, brand
15:57:01 [srowen]
we have a pretty good story on mobileOK Basic, pretty clear idea
15:57:04 [Zakim]
+MartinJ
15:57:05 [srowen]
means passing the checker
15:57:17 [Kai]
q+ to ask how the brand would be devalued if somebody claims mobileOK Pro, but may, in some testers view, fail on a point or two? Is that then less or more valuable content in mobile context than content that is mobileOK Basic?
15:57:29 [srowen]
afraid this extra complexity in mobileOK Pro may harm the brand
15:57:33 [jo]
ack k
15:57:33 [Zakim]
Kai, you wanted to ask how the brand would be devalued if somebody claims mobileOK Pro, but may, in some testers view, fail on a point or two? Is that then less or more valuable
15:57:36 [Zakim]
... content in mobile context than content that is mobileOK Basic?
15:57:43 [srowen]
Kai: understand the point about devaluing the brand, but this isn't black-and-white
15:57:57 [PhilA]
q+ to draw an analogy
15:58:01 [srowen]
someone's gone to the trouble of submitting content to testing,
15:58:11 [srowen]
two tester may disagree, usually on a small point
15:58:26 [PhilA]
ack me
15:58:26 [Zakim]
PhilA, you wanted to draw an analogy
15:58:36 [srowen]
PhilA: don't think Dom and I will agree on this
15:59:07 [srowen]
some subjective assessments have value -- Academy Awards, etc.
15:59:25 [dom]
(subjectivity through a central authority is ok, indeed)
15:59:52 [srowen]
guidelines and examples can lead people to roughly the same conclusion, even if it's not deterministic
15:59:54 [Zakim]
-drooks
16:00:11 [srowen]
dom: yes, if a central authority exists, this is not a problem
16:00:19 [srowen]
but Dom's Academy Awards, for example, wouldn't be of much use
16:00:32 [PhilA]
zakim, mute me
16:00:32 [Zakim]
Phil_Archer should now be muted
16:00:43 [srowen]
if we have multiple assessments from multiple authorities, it confuses the mark
16:00:52 [srowen]
jo: let's take this to the lsit
16:00:56 [Kai]
q+
16:01:00 [srowen]
s/lsit/list/
16:01:30 [jo]
ack k
16:01:54 [srowen]
Kai: if we decide this must be a very steadfast result, what effect does that have on BPs?
16:01:59 [srowen]
then that implies they have no value
16:02:43 [srowen]
we can say all we want about what it takes to be mobileOK Pro, but you're saying that if it's untestable, it's useless
16:02:50 [srowen]
then why are we writing the BPs?
16:03:09 [srowen]
dom: didn't mean "worthless", but referring to problems with the brand
16:03:46 [srowen]
Kai: need to look at potential effects on BPs as a whole
16:04:02 [PhilA]
zakim, unmute me
16:04:02 [Zakim]
Phil_Archer should no longer be muted
16:04:24 [srowen]
PhilA: if we don't define mobileOK Pro, somebody else will, so should be the W3C
16:04:47 [PhilA]
zakim, mute me
16:04:47 [Zakim]
Phil_Archer should now be muted
16:04:59 [dom]
(I think I could buy the idea of having a set of "BP reference tests", if don't call it mobileOK Pro)
16:05:10 [dom]
s/if/if we/
16:05:17 [PhilA]
Oh alrreight thenm
16:05:32 [PhilA]
sOh alrreight thenm/oh alright then/
16:05:47 [jo]
ACTION: Archer to summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject
16:05:47 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-716 - Summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject [on Phil Archer - due 2008-03-20].
16:05:56 [PhilA]
OK
16:06:17 [srowen]
jo: latest draft of accessibilitiy document is next
16:06:26 [dom]
Topic: Accessibility document
16:06:53 [Zakim]
-Phil_Archer
16:07:16 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080305/ Updated editors draft of BP-WCAG doc
16:07:23 [PhilA]
PhilA has left #bpwg
16:07:23 [srowen]
achuter: last week, new draft was published
16:07:24 [dom]
-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/changelog.html Changelog
16:07:26 [srowen]
an incremental update
16:07:59 [srowen]
no major changes to point out or discuss -- work is progressing
16:08:19 [srowen]
jo: yeliz made some contributions
16:08:20 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
16:08:20 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
16:08:42 [srowen]
yeliz: version 1 document is almost complete and sent to Alan last week, for incorporation
16:08:57 [srowen]
already incorporated
16:09:13 [srowen]
jo: any other comments on these drafts?
16:09:36 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
16:09:36 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
16:09:51 [srowen]
jo: we have only reviewed one doc so far, in short
16:10:00 [dom]
q+
16:10:05 [srowen]
any other business to discuss?
16:10:05 [dom]
ack me
16:10:15 [jo]
Topic: AOB
16:10:28 [srowen]
dom: we collected some stats on mobileOK checker
16:10:32 [dom]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0009.html
16:10:39 [srowen]
shows why pages fail
16:10:46 [srowen]
that is worth having a look at
16:10:53 [dom]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html
16:11:08 [srowen]
also, mobileOK Basic checker test suite, which shows which test cases are currently passing and why
16:11:19 [srowen]
it is evidence that the checker is implementing mobileOK Basic
16:11:33 [srowen]
jo: Those statistics were pretty interesting
16:11:47 [srowen]
wondering what level of conclusion we can draw from it
16:12:08 [srowen]
dom: surprised in number of valid pages with XHTML Basic DTD
16:12:25 [srowen]
in XHTML 1.0 you can use lang attribute, but need to use xml:lang in XHTML Basic
16:12:28 [srowen]
source of many failures
16:12:48 [srowen]
maybe DTD validation isn't the best way to ensure quality markup
16:12:57 [srowen]
maybe an issue for mobileOK Basic 2.0
16:13:02 [Zakim]
-achuter
16:13:09 [srowen]
jo: maybe water under the bridge -- difficult to "undo" that decision
16:13:51 [srowen]
will this be an obstacle to adoption, if people are failing for trivial reasons?
16:14:04 [srowen]
dom: 4-5% of sites are mobileOK Basic
16:14:09 [srowen]
not big but not trivial
16:14:29 [srowen]
some more fail with only one error
16:14:48 [srowen]
jo: some selection bias -- people using the checker are already interested in conformance
16:15:16 [srowen]
(srowen: will point out that mobileOK Basic is, in retrospect, definitely in no sense "too easy")
16:15:54 [srowen]
jo: not sure quite how to address this
16:16:03 [srowen]
dom can you give periodic updates on these statistics?
16:16:15 [srowen]
dom: can't promise, but can probably get them again at some point
16:16:30 [Kai]
q+
16:16:42 [srowen]
jo: will probably need to proceed with 1.0 as is
16:16:59 [dom]
q+
16:17:01 [srowen]
Kai: I do keep getting feedback on things that can't be fulfilled because of marketing, etc. requirements
16:17:01 [dom]
ack k
16:17:20 [jo]
ack d
16:17:22 [srowen]
yes, DTD validation is not sufficient
16:17:30 [srowen]
(srowen: think the question is whether it is necessary, not sufficient)
16:17:42 [srowen]
Kai: the tables issue keeps coming up
16:18:06 [srowen]
hard to not use tables
16:18:25 [srowen]
q+ for one last comment
16:18:43 [jo]
ack sro
16:19:25 [Kai]
Validation is a good thing, just not a statement that you are looking at good markup
16:19:43 [yeliz]
bye
16:19:46 [Zakim]
-Dom
16:19:47 [Zakim]
-Kai
16:19:47 [Zakim]
-jo
16:19:48 [srowen]
srowen: the issue on DTDs is whether the XHTML Basic spec is specifying too much trivial stuff -- clearly it is useful to require validitiy
16:19:49 [Zakim]
-MartinJ
16:19:49 [abel]
abel has left #bpwg
16:19:51 [Zakim]
-Ed_Mitukiewicz
16:19:54 [srowen]
srowen has left #bpwg
16:19:55 [Zakim]
-DKA
16:19:56 [Zakim]
-Sean_Owen
16:19:57 [Zakim]
-miguel
16:20:07 [jo]
[thanks Sean for scribing]
16:20:11 [dom]
zakim, who's on the call?
16:20:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yeliz
16:20:16 [dom]
zakim, drop yeliz
16:20:16 [Zakim]
yeliz is being disconnected
16:20:17 [Zakim]
MWI_BPWG()11:00AM has ended
16:20:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were +0777613aaaa, MartinJ, jo, miguel, Dom, Sean_Owen, abel, Kai, Phil_Archer, Ed_Mitukiewicz, drooks, yeliz, SeanP, Bryan_Sullivan, achuter, DKA
16:20:20 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:20:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html dom
18:20:20 [MartinJ]
MartinJ has left #bpwg
18:41:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #bpwg