See also: IRC log
<dom> CT guidelines latest editors version
DKA: I think the draft is ready for FPWD...
<jo> CT guidelines latest editors version
FD: CT task force agreed that they wanted to go to FPWD, so we are requesting formal approval from the group. Someone sent some comments this morning but not blocking publication.
<dom> [I applaud the CT task force for the quality of the CT guidelines; really good document for a FPWD IMO]
FD: Note that the document
doesn't confine itself to mobile specifically. It recognises
that Content Transformation happens, and scopes itself to web
browsing.
... section 2 describes proxy types based on HTTP RFC - the
document is about non-transparent proxies.
... We talk about different kinds of transformation and what
needs to happen.
... E.g. compression, markup change, splitting page, etc.
... Requirements section needs to be reworked (at least 3.1 and
3.2 be merged and rewritten).
... There needs to be: Control by user (view original content,
find out what's happening, maybe set preferences as well)
... Server control - origin servers must be able to
enable/disable transformation
... and Other Things outside the scope of this document. E.g.
disallow lists managed by CT proxies based on out-of-band
communication.
<dom> Publication moratorium starts next week, last pub request on April 15 (Tuesday)
FD: (more detailed tour of the document)
<jo> ACTION: jo to raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP links [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-732 - Raise an issue on 4.4 of CT draft 1j noting that HTTPS links should only be rewritten with HTTPS links and not HTTP links [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-17].
FD: We will be looking for feedback from teh public and the WG at large to improve this...
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Publish Draft 1j of the CT Guidelines as a FPWD
<dom> +1
<DKA> +1
<nacho> +1
<jeffs> +1
<srowen> +1
DKA: Concerned about all the editorial comments...
<achuter> +1
<yeliz> +1
<SeanP> +1
FD: We made a print stylesheet so if you kill a tree the document looks better...
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to talk about the editorial comments
JR: There are a lot of editorial comments. Think it is good to expose our thinking at this point, and I hope we resolve these soon but I think it is helpful to show the ideas in the meantime.
<dom> [I think it's absolutely fine to go to FPWD with the editorial notes]
[+1 for the proposed resolution]
RESOLUTION: Publish the Content Transformation draft as a First Public Working Draft
<Martin1> +1
JR: This is to reflect the thought that we need to actively promote the work of the group.
<dom> DKA: I think we need to do outreach about this document, esp. given the current climate around content transformation
<dom> DKA: the CT task force, under Jo's proposition, is suggesting we should organize an outreach event on CT, maybe around our Sophia F2F
JR: It would be nice to have an event where people come and say how lovely this is.
DKA: .mobi will promote it, we can do the same. I think everyone involved needs to sign up for promoting this.
[process-wise I don't think there is a requirement that we support what a task force presents...]
<DKA> +1
(discussion about how to promote this further - press releases, putting on pages, blogging, etc)
<dom> [I think it's too early for a Press Release; the document WILL be announced on the W3c home page]
JR: Who on the call would attend a meeting to promote this
<achuter> +1
JR: Sophia Antipolis is "not the
most central and easily accessible place to hold a promotion
event" (paraphrasing)
... maybe London, Frankfurt or somewhere would be better. But
we need to feel that people's organisations would be interested
in being there.
FD: We have half a day or so spare in Sophia Antipolis that we could use, independent of other things
AC: POWDER organised an event at GSMA - might be a good model
FD: Agree
CMN: I am feeling like the Task Force is a bit premature in promoting this, given that it has had WG support for a rough draft for half an hour... although it does make sense to plan.
JR: I owuld like to think that we
are planning with a reasonable advance to ensure that when we
have something like a last call we are ready to do stuff.
... waiting until this is in the middle of CR before we think
about promoting it will cause us not to do so well.
<srowen> +2
JR: this WD is late on our schedule, but it seems time to plan for promoting the work in a timely way.
<srowen> (i am an unbiased third party)
<srowen> (... but I still have no idea what the suspicion or controversy is. it's already getting late as the timely discussion of this in the community is already passing)
JR: What support is there in the group for people turning up and having their organisation say "we support this work" within the group?
<DKA> +1
<jeffs> +1
<Martin1> +1
<srowen> (Will speak for Aaron in saying yes)
<Kai> Maybe
[unless we decide later that we hate this, we are likely to be there]
<jo> +1
<SeanP> +1
<achuter> Maybe
<edm> maybe
<francois> +1
<nacho> maybe too
<yeliz> maybe
<dom> Latest BP2 draft
DKA: We have a number of comments
in and some responses
... it will be difficult to discuss this with Bryan :(
JR: Having just had the group agree to make a FPWD, it seems that there is potentially less consensus about the readiness of BP2 for FPWD.
<dom> [I agree on Jo's view about not being quite at consensus yet]
<srowen> (Bryan asked that we not take a resolution one way or the other on proceeding today, in his absence.)
JR: think we are heading in the right direction but the document should be clearer about noting the areas that are currently under discussion
DKA: Are there resolutions we can take?
<srowen> (I personally am OK with a public draft that clearly marks a few areas as 'under discussion')
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest that we postpone a week even if just to get continuous news
No resolution today.
AC: We have been looking at this
for a while
... the mapping from BP to WCAG goes one way, the mapping the
other way works differently.
AC: it seems better to make the flow follow the task and structure around the WCAG for someone who has done BP and wants to know what they still need to do for WCAG rather than being led through BP again.
<jo> [PROPOSED RESOLUTION: (To be taken next week) Proceed with new structure of Accessibility doc]
<jo> [All to be prepared to answer this in an informed way next week]
<jeffs> brb
<dom> DKA: shouldn't this be done as part of a primer rather than directly in this document?
<dom> [I don't see a benefit from building yet another document; this sounds like it should be the primer itself]
<yeliz> +q
<yeliz> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mwbp-wcag-20080122/wcag20-mwbp.html#extending_WCAG20_MWBP10
YY: There is a summary at the top
of the document linked above saying which are the BPs you need
to do still (or not)
... I think it is good to keep these documents short and have
the summaries. I think it would be a good idea to have a
seperate document that goes through best practices in detail
showing how they relate to accessibility guidelines
<scribe> ACTION: Yeliz to restructure a couple of BPs to illustrate her point [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-733 - Restructure a couple of BPs to illustrate her point [on Yeliz Yesilada - due 2008-04-17].
DKA: I wasn't talking about the exhaustive document. I am talking about a simple thing that says "you are here, this is what you need to add to get there"
<achuter> http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/
AC: We are just talking about a
new way of structuring the existing document to make it easier
to use.
... pasted a link to a very short summary document which may be
what DKA was wanting.
<DKA> Alan: review structure of the document, specifically whether 2nd half of the document should be removed.
DKA: Think we should review this document first
<DKA> Alan: (specifically "Individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria Compared")
JR: Think we should plan some proposed resolutions to guide people where to look, so we can take advantage of the great work Alan has done.
<achuter> Please look through the section of the document pointed to by URL above and decide whether it is really useful and if not , could be removed
DKA: Makes sense.
... so for the agenda for next week, let's look at having a
resolution on the question of whether to remove the section
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#wcag_sc_compared
<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION (for next week): agree on the restructuring of the wcag-mwbp
AC: I think we could go ahead, and the material is still around if we make the changes back again.
JR: I don't want the group to keep giving you guys the runaround - we should have informed and clear guidance for you.
<achuter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0040.html
<achuter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Apr/0042.html
DKA: You are asking Shawn these questions?
AC: They are questions addressed in the document, not things that we need to answer seperately.
<dom> ACTION: Alan to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to approve [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Alan
<trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. achuter, atai)
<dom> ACTION: achuter to prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to approve [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-734 - Prepare a set of resolutions for BPWG to approve [on Alan Chuter - due 2008-04-17].
JR: Suggest Alan give us a list of proposed resolutions, with pointers to the things we need to understand to make intelligent decisions on the draft.
DHM: I have heard a few people
wondering about moving BP2 to FPWD, and I think the best thing
we could do would be to provide Bryan with a co-editor if we
have someone available...
... so if anyone is wondering, please please step up
<DKA> +1
DHM: may be text editing, or creating issues and following tracker etc, ...
JR: The resumed "mobile OK Trustmark Scheme draft thingo" has now been posted for people to consider...
<edm> bye
<nacho> bye
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/latest